Jennifer C. Bungubung
Divine
World College of Laoag
Abstract
Jean-Jacques Rousseau's concept of the General Will explores the relationship between individual freedom and collective power. This paper looks at Rousseau's vision of a society guided by the General Will. It explores how this concept aims to strike a balance between individual freedom and the community's needs. The paper also investigates how to define and enforce the General Will. It discusses the potential for it to act as a unifying force, along with the risk of it becoming a tool for oppression. By examining the tensions in Rousseau's theory, this paper offers a critical view of its lasting relevance in today's conversations about Democracy, legitimacy, and political authority.
Keywords: General Will, Common
Good, Personal Interest. Lawgiver, Citizen, Collective responsibility,
Democracy
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)
Jean-Jacques
Rousseau was a Swiss-born philosopher, writer, and political theorist whose
treatises and novels inspired the leaders of the French Revolution and the
Romantic generation (Cranston, M., and Duignan, B., 2025). He was born to Isaac
Rousseau and Suzanne Bernard in Geneva on June 28, 1712. His mother died only a
few days later, on July 7, and his only sibling, an older brother, ran away
from home when Rousseau was still a child. Rousseau was therefore brought up
mainly by his father, a clockmaker, with whom he read ancient Greek and Roman
literature, such as the Lives of Plutarch, at an early age. His father
got into a quarrel with a French captain and, at the risk of imprisonment, left
Geneva for the rest of his life. Rousseau stayed behind and was cared for by an
uncle, who sent him and his cousin to study in the village of Bosey. In 1725,
Rousseau was apprenticed to an engraver and began to learn the trade. Although
he did not detest the work, he thought his master to be violent and tyrannical.
He therefore left Geneva in 1728 and fled to Annecy. Here he met Louise de
Warens, who was instrumental in his conversion to Catholicism, which forced him
to forfeit his Genevan citizenship (in 1754, he would make a return to Geneva
and publicly convert back to Calvinism). Rousseau's relationship with Mme. de
Warens lasted for several years and eventually became romantic. During this time,
he earned money through secretarial, teaching, and musical jobs. (Fieser and Dowden, 1995)
Jean-Jacques
Rousseau remains an essential figure in the history of philosophy, both because
of his contributions to political philosophy and moral psychology and on
account of his influence on later thinkers. Rousseau's own view of most
philosophy and philosophers was firmly negative, seeing them as post-hoc
rationalizers of self-interest, as apologists for various forms of tyranny, and
as playing a role in the alienation of the modern individual from humanity's
natural impulse to compassion. The concern that dominates Rousseau's work is to
find a way of preserving human freedom in a world where people are increasingly
dependent on one another to satisfy their needs. This concern has two
dimensions: material and psychological, with the latter being more important.
In the modern world, human beings derive their sense of identity and value from
the opinions of others, which Rousseau sees as corrosive of freedom and
destructive of individual authenticity. In his mature work, he principally
explores two routes to achieving and protecting freedom: the first is a
political one aimed at constructing institutions that permit and foster the
coexistence of free and equal citizens in a community where they themselves are
sovereign; the second is a project for child development and education that
nurtures autonomy and avoids the genesis of the most destructive forms of
self-interest. However, although Rousseau believes that the coexistence of
human beings in relations of equality and freedom is possible, he is consistently
and overwhelmingly pessimistic that humanity will escape a dystopia of
alienation, oppression, and unfreedom. In addition to his contributions to
philosophy, Rousseau was active as a composer, a music theorist, a pioneer of
modern autobiography, a novelist, and a botanist. Rousseau's appreciation of
the wonders of nature and his emphasis on the importance of feeling and emotion
made him a significant influence on and anticipator of the romantic movement.
To a considerable extent, the interests and concerns that mark his
philosophical work also inform these other activities, and Rousseau's
contributions in ostensibly non-philosophical fields often serve to illuminate
his philosophical commitments and arguments. (Malpas, 2012)
Rousseau’s contributions to
political philosophy are scattered among various works, most notable of which
are the Discourse on Inequality, the Discourse on Political
Economy, The Social Contract, and Considerations on the
Government of Poland. However, many of his other works, both major and
minor, contain passages that amplify or illuminate the political ideas in those
works. His central doctrine in politics is that a state can be legitimate only
if it is guided by the “general will” of its members. This idea finds its most
detailed treatment in The Social Contract.
The Social Contract
and the Birth of the General Will
Rousseau
starts The Social Contract with his famous statement: “Man is born free, and
everywhere he is in chains.” He believed that people are naturally good and
free in their original state of nature, but they become corrupted by society
and inequality. To regain freedom and create a fair political order, Rousseau
proposed a new kind of social agreement, the social contract. In this contract,
individuals agree together to form a community. This community is guided not by
personal desires or private interests but by the general will, which represents
the shared will of the people focused on the common good. By accepting this
collective will, Rousseau argued, individuals do not lose their freedom.
Instead, they find it in a higher form: the freedom of moral and civic
autonomy.
Rousseau’s account of the general
will contains unclear points that have sparked interest among commentators
since its first publication. The central tension lies between a democratic
view, where the general will is simply what citizens decide together in their
sovereign assembly, and another interpretation where the general will represents
the common interest of citizens, existing apart from what any individual
actually wants (Bertram, 2012). Additionally, there is the perspective of the
general will as the will of individual citizens directed toward the common good
(Canon, 2022). Each of these interpretations finds some basis in Rousseau's
writings and has had an impact. Modern ideas about Democracy often refer to
Rousseau's discussion in Book 2, Chapter 3 of The Social Contract. These
discussions typically start with Condorcet's jury theorem, viewing democratic
processes as a way to discover the truth about the public interest. They then
interpret the general will as a means of discussion aimed at outcomes that meet
individual preferences and justify the authority of the state. The tension
between the "democratic" and "transcendental" views can be
lessened if we understand Rousseau to be suggesting that, under the right
conditions and procedures, citizen legislators will tend to agree on laws that
reflect their common interest. However, when those conditions and procedures
are lacking, the state inherently lacks legitimacy. This interpretation leads
to a view similar to a posteriori philosophical anarchism. This view suggests
that while it is theoretically possible for a state to have legitimate
authority over its citizens, all actual states—and especially those we
encounter in the modern world—are likely to fail in meeting the criteria for
legitimacy.
Rousseau argues that for the
general will to be truly general, it must come from everyone and apply to
everyone. This idea has both critical and formal aspects. Formally, Rousseau
states that the law must be general in application and universal in scope. The
law cannot name specific individuals, and it must apply to all people within
the state. Rousseau believes that this condition will lead citizens, even when
considering their own private interests, to support laws that protect the
common interest fairly and that are not overly burdensome or intrusive.
However, for this to happen, citizens' situations must be broadly similar to
one another. In a state with diverse lifestyles and occupations, significant
cultural diversity, or high economic inequality, the impact of the laws will
not be the same for everyone. In these cases, a citizen may struggle to view
the general will by only imagining how general and universal laws affect their
own situation. (Rousseau, 2010)
Understanding the
General Will
The general will represent what is best for
the whole community. In contrast, the will of all adds up to individual
preferences. The general will aim for the common good and go beyond personal or
group interests. It is not just based on majority opinion; it comes from the
collective reasoning of citizens who prioritise the community's welfare over
their own self-interest. Rousseau's idea questions the belief that freedom
means doing whatever one pleases. For him, true freedom is following a law that
one creates for oneself. This law reflects the general will. As a result,
individuals become both the authors and subjects of the rules they follow,
ensuring equality and legitimacy in governance.
For
Rousseau, however, the general will is not an abstract ideal. It is instead the
will actually held by the people in their capacity as citizens.
Rousseau’s conception is thus political and differs from the more
universal conception of the general will held by Diderot. To partake in the
general will means, for Rousseau, to reflect upon and to vote based on one's
sense of justice. Individuals become conscious of their interests as citizens,
according to Rousseau, and thus of the interest of the republic as a whole, not
through spirited discussions but, on the contrary, by following their personal
conscience in the "silence of the passions." In this sense, the
public assembly does not debate so much as disclose the general will of the
people. Rousseau argued that the general will is intrinsically right, but he
also criticised in some works (mainly in his Discours sur les sciences et
les arts (1750; Discourse on the Sciences and Arts) the
rationalist elevation of reason above feelings. This
has provoked scholarly debate about the rational and affective
dimensions of the general will. On the one hand, the general will reflects the
rational interest of the individual (as a citizen) as well as that of the
people as a whole. On the other hand, the general will not be purely rational
because it emerges out of an attachment and even a love for one's political
community. (Munro, 2013)
The Function of the
Lawgiver and the Citizen
Rousseau
placed a strong emphasis on citizens' active involvement in forming the general
will. Active citizens who act out of civic virtue and prioritise the common
good over their own interests are necessary for a decent society. Additionally,
he developed the concept of the Lawgiver, a wise founder who assists the
populace in determining the collective will and creating rules that serve the
common welfare. However, the people themselves always retain sovereignty once
the laws are put in place.
In
Rousseau’s The Social Contract, the roles of the Lawgiver and the Citizen are
key to understanding how the General Will works within a political community.
Each has a distinct but connected role in shaping and maintaining a fair and
stable society. In fact, the Lawgiver has both "a task which is beyond
human powers and a non-existent authority for its execution." And they
must also speak to the people in terms they can understand, for it takes good
government to create "the social spirit" that makes people understand, appreciate, and perpetuate good government
(Rousseau, 2020)
The
Lawgiver holds a unique, almost sacred place in Rousseau’s political theory. He
is not a ruler or magistrate but a visionary founder who helps create the
fundamental laws and institutions that express the General Will. The Lawgiver’s
job is to turn the people’s collective wishes for the common good into a clear
set of laws. However, the Lawgiver does not impose his own will; instead, he
helps the people see their true interests and form a moral and political
community. Rousseau likens the Lawgiver to an architect who builds the
foundation on which the state can last.
On the
other hand, the Citizen represents the active member of the sovereign body. For
Rousseau, citizens are both the creators and subjects of the laws—they make the
laws as part of the collective sovereign and follow them as individuals. This
dual role captures Rousseau’s principle of freedom: by obeying laws they have
made for themselves, citizens are not controlled by others but governed by
their own shared will.
The harmony between the Lawgiver and the
Citizen ensures that the General Will shows the true interests of everyone. The
Lawgiver establishes the moral and institutional framework, while the citizens
support it through their engagement and commitment to the common good. When
both fulfill their roles, society achieves legitimacy, equality, and moral
unity—these are the ideals central to Rousseau’s vision of political life.
Rousseau's
general will theory has come under attack for being idealistic and even
dangerous if misinterpreted. Others have argued that it could be used to
justify authoritarian rule in the name of the "common good." However,
Rousseau intended to promote equality and collective freedom, not tyranny. He
aimed to create a moral society where all members share the responsibility for
the principles and rules that shape them.
Despite
these debates, Rousseau's impact remains strong. His demand for moral and civic
equality still resonates in modern talks about Democracy, social justice, and
participatory governance. The General Will serves as a potent reminder that
political legitimacy should always be based on the common good of the
community, not the interests of a select group.
Conclusion
Jean-Jacques
Rousseau’s idea of the general will is one of the most impactful and
thought-provoking concepts in political philosophy. It pushes societies to
balance individual freedom with collective responsibility and personal interest
with the common good. In Rousseau’s ideal republic, true liberty is found not
in isolation but in unity. This occurs when citizens willingly choose to pursue
together what benefits everyone.
His
concept of the General Will is essential to modern political thought. In The
Social Contract, Rousseau envisioned a society where absolute authority comes
from the agreement of free and equal citizens, not from power or privilege. The
General Will stands for the moral and common good that unites individuals into
a single political community. Rousseau's ideas challenged the traditional
foundations of government and inspired democratic movements that sought to
empower the people. He believed that true freedom is found in obeying laws that
one imposes on oneself, a concept that transformed the understanding of
citizenship and responsibility within the state.
Despite facing
criticism and various interpretations, Rousseau's ideas continue to matter
today. In an era still grappling with inequality, social division, and
political corruption, his plea for participation, moral unity, and commitment
to the common good is crucial. His philosophy reminds us that Democracy is more
than just a form of government; it is a shared commitment to justice and the
well-being of all.
Ultimately, Rousseau’s vision of the General Will encourages societies to balance individual freedom with collective responsibility. This remains a timeless goal for peaceful human coexistence.
REFERENCES:
Bertram, C. (2012). Rousseau's Legacy in Two Conceptions of the General Will: Democratic and Transcendent
Canon. S. (2022). Three General Wills in Rousseau, The Review of Politics
Carnston, M. & Duignan, B. (2025). Literature, Novels & Short Stories. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jean-Jacques-Rousseau
Fieser, J, and Dowden, B. (1995). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://iep.utm.edu/rousseau
Malpas, J. (2012). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Munro, A. (2013). Politics, Law, and Government
Rousseau, J. (2010). Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Rousseau, J. (2020). The Social Contract Book 2, Chapter 7: The Lawgiver Summary. https://boatcontinuing.com/q9h97sj5?key=23b279e99ed6a529a30f577cdce2aeb9
https://boatcontinuing.com/q9h97sj5?key=23b279e99ed6a529a30f577cdce2aeb9
No comments:
Post a Comment