Rousseau's Notion of Liberty in 'On the Social Contract'

In positing anarchism, as a practical form of human existence, one must do away with the existing notions that stand in the way. Ideas like Hobbes 'state of nature' need to be critiqued. Likewise Rousseau should be criticized. Rousseau's dichotomy of types of liberty should be looked at more closely, and then criticized.

In chapter eight of book one of On the Social Contract, Rousseau points out two types of liberty, Natural liberty and Civil liberty. He says Natural liberty is the freedom limited to the extent of one's amount of force. An individual's natural liberty depends on his or her ability to force others to follow his or her will. Rousseau says it is: "[L]imited solely by the force of the individual involved." (Rousseau, 151). Here we see the way in which the individual has freedom in the state of nature, according to Rousseau.

In opposition to Natural liberty is Civil liberty. Which has more to do with the will of all people, most likely with regard to the protection of the individual's interests. Rousseau says it is: "[L]limited by the general will." (Rousseau, 151). This shows that Civil liberty depends on consensus between individuals making up a society. Civil liberty clearly belongs to the group of people living in a society.

These two forms of 'liberty,' and the relative context Rousseau places them in, are very much interchangeable. One can certainly apply one form of liberty to the other form living conditions, be they a state of nature or society.

First it seems important to mention, as I did in my last blog entry, that the state of nature does no exist in the condition that Rousseau and Hobbes say it did. Never were individuals running around independently trying to conquer or enslave other individuals. Humans have always been pack animals and the social relations between packs probably presented the conditions of slavery and dominance that Rousseau and Hobbes discuss.

That being said, it is important to examine the social bond, presented in an individual pack in the state of nature. Clearly it would be the general will of the pack, that is placed above the individual, that will limit the individual's liberty. This is Rousseau's notion of civil liberty applied to the individual in the state of nature.

Now, one could examine the opposite form of liberty in the civil state. Simply looking at the enterprise of money shows the force that one individual can exert over another. The more money a person has, the more force he or she will have in a civil state. This will create more liberty for the person with more money.

The reversal of the notion of liberty shows the possible rejection of the civil state, simply questioning Rousseau's logic, and critiquing the notion of 'the state of nature,' will give us the ability to question the foundations of the justifications of belief in the state and the sovereign. While Rousseau may have been making the argument for a republic over a monarchy or state of nature, he still advocates a minority in control of the majority. This minority will always only seek to consolidate its power over the majority, as opposed to acting in the interest of the majority.


____________________________________________________________________

Works Cited

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. On the Social COntract. Jean-Jacques ROusseau: The Basic POlitical Writings. Trans. Cress, David A. Hackett Publishing Company. 1987. In. Page 151.