F University of Nigeria Research Publications
Aut
hor
AGHAMELU, Fidelis Chuka PG/MA/88/6552
Title
Social Alienation and Political Affirmation in Rousseau
Facu
lty
Social Sciences
Dep
artm
ent
Philosophy
Dat
e
September, 1989
Sign
atur
e
S o c i a l A l i e n a t i o n And B l i t i c a l A f f i r m a t i o n
In
De par tr~;nlen t o S i%i l o s o phy
University o r Niger ia .
Plsulm a.
This t h e s i s has b e r r approvad for the
department cji! Z h i l o s o p h y , Un.iversi.-ty
o f N ige r i a , Nsukka
IJY
Rev, D r . C , D Oko lo Rev. P r ~ f . I. Onycwucng-i
(:lead o f Department ) em ol F a c u l t y )
September, T989
Mr A{:harnelu Chuka E ' i d e l i s , n pos t - g r a d u a t e S t u d e n t
I1 i n the: d e j ~ a r t m e n t of' lJ iiooso ?hy, r r~a jo r ing i i ~ S o c i a l
and Pu14-t;ical ihl losophy , has s a t i s f a c t o r i l y completed
Depar'imcnt of H? i loso 2h:~ U n i v e r s i t y o f N i g e r i a
D a I CAT1 ON . b *
A CKNOVLEDGMdNT .A. PREFACE .A.
INTRODUCTION . L. CHAPTER ONE:
1.1 LiZe 14i.ste1-y
1.2 1vIajorWorks ... . . . 1.3 Major Influences . .. . . . 1.4 References ... e m . ...
PAGE - i
i i
iii
v
CWhPTXR TWO: PRI ITCIPLBS OF ROUSSUTJS PHI_LOSOJ?HY
2.1 Na tme -- -. . m e
2.2 Natural goodness and s implic i ty .*. 2.3 fieedmm ... .*. .. . 2.4 Keferencds . . r -. ...
CIUPTl3R THHEQ: SOCIhTY AND ALIENATION
3.1 General nqtion 6f Alienation 0 .
3.2 Society and Alienation r . e m
3.3 Property and Inequali t y ... 3.4 References ... .ha 46.
J3J&@J CAL AFFIIRMAT1,ON AIYD R'f;aISCOVE&Y b OF fNDI?aDUAL
4.1 The Nation of Po l i t i c a l Affirmation 4 7
4.2 The Guiding Principles of F i r s t Societies 44
4.3 The Social Contract . m a #.a 49
Y k i s work is dedi.ca,-ted wi-th p;zt.l.tuile
to my belovcd paren ts Ihr arid Mrs Tv1,l'J.
Agha,melu, in evergreen rnerrioyy o f my
l z t e grand f a t h e r O k e o s i s i Bul .
Xkwghu; my grand mother ( Ichiora Anna
Ekwgha, and my everything aunt M r r ;
V i c t o r i a ~ k o n k w o .
t1ii.s psych~ll.ogicu.1. :'; r : a w n a e of man., In r! ia. lcctica. l .
t;(:ri~~s t,j t h i s r ~ ; p r e s e ~ i t , ~ s tnl jg : ; les f o r p rogress . N e w
possi .bi1. i Lies :, new hor i zc in s , rrex colice pt,s o f r e l a -
4- " b l o n s h i p am]. h i t h e r t o unthir1kabl.c pros ~ec-t;,.:. f o r man-
k i n d were ini-Lia.i; a d ,
Seven-teen-th. cci2.i-ury s a w whd; 1na.y he ca,l.led
Modern i s -L r evo l - i ; a@i-1s t -l;ra.d i tioi-i 3.3 e pi-t oixised in
the th?occ i lL r i c i am of' t h e medieval. age. I n d i v i d u a l i s m
came in-Lo p l a y axil '. w a s seen ex-!-;:re:;sein{ i ~ t s e l f i n
S c i e n c : ~ , a . r . t s , m ~ a l s avid ~ T 0 l i t i . c ~ . R ~ l T t i c z i l
and Sfic:i:!.l thinker?;; r;ou~;h.t; f o r a, new .fourida.-t;i.on f o r
s o c i e t y w i t h o u t any r e f e r e n c e t o t r a . d i t i o n . It w a s
a t t h i s backdrop t h a t t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e 6f R o u s s e a u q s , $
s o c i a l and i -o l i t i c a l B i l o s o p h y 2inned down. It i s L
w i t h i n t h i s g e n e r a l c o n t e x t t h a t Rousseau &B&
i n s t i c a b e d -the r i g h t s and i n t e r c s t a o f thci nr
masses as a, f o r c e t o reckon. w i t h .
suggc:;.t norc than anything e l s e , the i d e a of ; : soc i a l
a l i cna . t i.on and B ~ L - t i c a l af l'irma.ti.on;i. There ks no
o t h e r way by w k ~ h i c h we can m t i c u l a . t e t he ke rne l of
independence and ordairis ?I-t t;he m n s t primary, s ac red ,
inalienable, invalua.ble ancl precious o f t h e q u a l i t i e s
of t hc I?u:lan person. (;'_."o rcmoullcc l i b e r t y i s co
renounct:: bc .~ng a man . It i.:; -Lo i,vallow i n i n a u t l i e n t i c i t y . Roussca,u g ives -the p.i.ciur.c o f .the French Soc ie ty
of h i s day as an epi.tome of ct:r,ploit:-~.ii;ior and t y r a n i c d
in-Lcrdependencc, wi th soci.81 r!-:la.-tions forced and
coe rc ive , having ,;might; and r i c h t i ; as a b a s i s . 'IYhe
r e s u l t s n t e f Sect f s inequa.li ' iy and sl;.:very. This is
'soci:il a,l.icna,tion;i . '; m l i t i c a l a,f f i r m . - t i o m i s -the.
i n d i v i d u a l freedom, f o r freedom i s seen through equa l i ty .
It is the re fo re the view o f the r ~ o l i t i c a l S t a t c as t h e
inst rument of socka l r econs t ruc t ion and p o l i t i c a l commu-
the bearer of rrlalrss b e s t hope.
L .~ke Plate, ElGussea ?{as obsessed by t h e ih t ima t ions
o f co r rup t ion , disorganiza. t ion, even of break-down i n
s o c i e t y arond him, and l i k e .[-)lato, Rousseau saw the
po:l.ii;j.c;l.l c o im~~ni . ' cy , i n d i v i s i ' b l e arid ui?-ita.ry a.; the on ly
p o s s i b l 2 ::c,lutican t;o -the i l l s and torrnenJi;s of s o c i e t y ,
mom h i s idca, o.." S t a t e oi' n ~ t u r e -Lo t h e t heo ry of t h e
S o c i a l c o n t r a c t , ~'i.ousocau consci-uusly :wrsues h i s e n t e r p r i s e
on l i b b r t y . Dorn -the advoctj-Lion o f abso lu te independence
i n the s t 2 . t e 9 h i s idea. of freedom cnln inz ted i~:: the
democrxtic-des potism of tlx Genera.1 W i l l .
I n t h i s work, attern )i; will. be made a:t, p u r s ~ i n g t h e
meaning and va lue wriich R0ussea.u a-t-Laches on freedom
as the a c t u a l i z i n g essence o f t he Fdl lness of being
o f t he i ndiv idua l and how bsst i t i s achievabile
wi th in the $i;aJie.
This work i s divided iuto s i x c h a p t e r s , Cha;pter
One t r e a t s !loussea,ul s background. Chapt c r l"wo : .explains
-i;he p r i n c i p l e s o f i iousseaugs %ilosopLy, Cha.2ter Three
is n.11 OXC:~II'SUS 01.1 s o c i e t y and alienn-Lion. ii
mother d_i.ed a, fcw days a X e r ili:: b i r t h and was brought
up by a.unt and. zn e r r a t i c f a t h e r who taught him t o read
t a l l y t h a t a t -the age o f -txhlvc i;.:. 1728 he l e f t Geneva.
t o seek h i s for tune elsewhere. He was be fri.end.ed
and pro-tccted by a m i s t r e s s , I'Yme, de \:jarens whose i n f l u -
ence on Rousseau w x very yrorninen-t;. R0ussecll.u l i v e d
wi th h e r art jinney i n Savoy, with t 'le f inancia .1 s u p r o r t
from th.e king :of Sa,rdinia, and the c-cclesk$ot.ica.l r, .uthority.
~ o u s s e a , u i s at tachment t o her [was a d e c i s i v e f a c t o r i n h i s
-2-
Roussea l e d an u n s e t t l e d l i f e , and o f r e s t l e s s &rave l .
In-t e l lectual1 .y t h e most injpor-Lant event of - th i s
ph:mc of h i s l i r e !]as a p ro t r zc t ed spel l . o f e n t h u s i a s t i c
l i f e -lo:n:$ i n t t ? r e s t -a e?uc::,.tion.
In Ir7:i3 i i ousaca~ . w s n,ppoir~t;ed s e c r e t a r y &o t h e
yrench ;mhnoo:~dor at Venice, !'iu&e i':'Lonta.ign, l:mt he l o s t
thSa fkc f o l . l o w i n g y e a r becc!.usr o f a qua. r rc l w i th h i m .
O:? I1i.s i-:?-hmn 'GO Ri.ri:j, ?ouase;w. beZriem?ied an i g n o r a n t
girl, !pi.lereuc Ic Va,s,~eur i.:;! I74~5 by whom hc: ]?ad f i v e
ille;:;itirrla.te c:?iIdren.. kIe a l s o m e t f iqdevot , ~ ' f ~ ~ l e ! ~ ~ . b e r t ,
aiid o the r ph i loso ,<hers ::;?~d was i n v i t e d . t o comhtribute
m s i c a l a r t i c l e s to t h e encyclo:sedi~..
1ioussea.u';;: r e l a t i o n wi th t h e Encyclopedis ts even-
t u a l l y became s t r a i n e d , wi th in te l l .ec t~7. il differences,
especin . l ly on t h e s u b j e c t O Y r e l i g io l z , I n 1762 t h e
condemn3tion o f t he Emile b y Eris ~ a r l i a m e n t forced him
t o f l e e from m m c e and t o s e t t l e i n Neucha.tc& dunde r the .
protec-Lion of thc Iring of Pruss ia . I n 176LFo l3oussea.u
w r o -t e a po leinLc a]. work t h e ,i!qt,~~~~ee~._s~C,c,r,~~~C~~~s .dde,,&% .JM,c:$x~:-g,
povokcd by i ~ l c r e a s i n g o ,?;)o:;i t i o n from Gene-va. a . u t h o r i t i e s
t o h i s p o l i t i c a l and r e l i g i o u s views, f\l..!.rxcd :by $oca,l
hosti l : i . ty, T3oussez.u decided t o l eave I\Tcucha.-be1 r e g i o n
ir, 1765 and accepted an invit?ft:.on f r o m t h e :5hi:l.osopher
3 - liume t o m a k e h i s h o x e i n ::ingla,nd.
He picked q u a r r e l with Rume and accused t ~ f defanla.-
t i o n , 'I!hcre,'zft-r his l i f e bcca~nc d i s tu rbed Sy appear-
~ ~ i c e o.f abiilorrn:~.l cin(~-tlona.1 and mcnt a1 rc2a.c t l o ~ i s . I n
I767 Rousseau f l e d to France and m o v e d from pia.cc t o Q ~ E X C
o p ?resscd by tlic thought o P uni .vcrsa1 pcrcccu.- t ion. He
died on July 2 1778.
somebody1 s thou&t , e s p, )c ia l ly w h c ~ such . ln f lucr~ccs a r e
n o t mowed. I i o ~ e v ~ r , wc c ~n r c , ~ t the gtner: : l ir:l"luences
untl.er t h rcc headings nzrnely infl.uenccs 06 idc:is, upm
upon method and h i s t o r i c a l inf l -aence. - li-1 t r m t i n l ; of any :i.uthor, the f i r 3 . k p r c r equ iu i t c
i n h i s Loricnl imagina.tion. '!:his mo.ans r e f e r r i n g mznt . . l ly
t o t h c environment i n which the person l i v e d . El Thc f i r s t
s t e p ~ o u l d be t o r c l x t e Iiousseau i n -the Kacrocosn of t h e
modernis.t r!svolt o f i;lle 17th cen t and t h o irnmcdichb
mcnclz s o c i e t y -tha,l nus-turcrl t h : ~ germ 01 h i s philosophy.
3ut whi le the, former f o u m :.ILL ul.tirrlate base of r i g l i t
Lockc zncl d i s c i p l e of Pla-to,
But the i n f luence of 1 l a . t o is most s ig l l i f i c - ln t . BothRouss:a-i~ and n n t o hnvc a grca 'c deal i n common.
Wisbet w r i t e s t o t h i s e f f c c t tha,t ; ;such, indded, w a s
Rousse ,mis d e v o t ~ o n ?;o the cornmuna.1 s p i r i t o f I?la-to's
politic:3.3- phil0soph.y .... I3ke f l .a .J~o, Rowseau was
obsessed by in-timat ions of c o r r u p t i o n , disorga.nl.ss,tion,
. . .. c9flen.son:; i s t h e source of corru- , , t ion and bo-t;h. : s u b s c r ~ bed
t o t h e lc,;end of golden agei i , i n which :nan lived i n
s i m , ? l i c i t y and happiness .
'i'hc. t r , ~ a t m c n t of n t o 4ic on 'da,Lurc has a ve ry cen t ra l -
p o s i t i o n i n t h e undcrs-ta~.clir,g f t he aspec t fxom which
Roussc-lu i s trecztec? in. t h i s ir&quir.y. The idea, of na.turre
always conveys t h e no t ion ' ! that t i i i n , s were nb t a lw2.y~
oi" life. = w f v r n i s h us witll t h e d a ~ a m' of t h a t
which i s natural o r rnorma,l and a . r , : i f i c i a l , a d e v i a t i o n
on the o t h e r hand, w r i l l be lmow?~ as :a,fiirmai!ion;;.
Roussem a r t i c u l a l,es Llic i !nlm~-~&nct : o f t n i s when he says
It i s t h e ignora.nce of tht. r iature . :of man which c a s t s s o much -mce r t a in ty and o b s c u r i t y on the t r u e d e f i r ~ i t i o n of ma.t;u-- r a l r i g h t , f o r t h i s id?;?, o f r i g h t . . . a r e mani fcs te ly re ldi iv : : to th? n a t u r e S E man. 2
He con t inues , But as long 3,s we a r e i g n o r a n t of t he n a t u r a l man, iJi. .-is i n v a i n f o r u s t o a t tempt t o dLi-t;srml.ne e i t h e r t h e l a w o r i - g i n a l l y prescri'oed t o him or t h a t wkich i s best s u i t e d or adapted t o h i s c o n s t i - t u t i o n . 3
arc: c r t l c i a l i s s u e s of , ~ l l - l ; i c a , l ~phi:i~:;~rjhy, They g ive us
i s t h e r e f o r e i m ~ o r i - a n t -that we should t r t>a, thc idea.
of n,ztu re s i n c e they form the : ib twis of S3c ie ty ' , . 4 1,ike
I n z!, -1rmary scnse , na.-Lure i s taken -!,o mean t h e e n t i r e
ordcred uL! ive r se , t h e -tota,l . l ty of -the crea. tcd beings and
e n t i t i c s -that, c ornpose it, .the 1 o . w ~ which govcrfi them m d
i r r ~ l ~ ~ i y : t o be born:,5 and quotes Acis to- t l ; 7 s d e f i n f t i o ~ l
o f i - t a s -the p r i n c i ;pic of mo~:i~mner?t which the be i r~ l : f i n d s
i t s e l f impelled per s e and no-L per x c i d c n s t o o'beyi:. 6
A;"isto.tle mz,int;3,ins two dirwnsions of n a t u r e , mamcly
B-t e n t i a l i t y and Ac'cuali-ty. 'i'hus p o t e n t i a l i t y and a c t u -
a l i t y a r c cr Ocesses i;l axcorda~lcc w i th n a Lure.
riouascau beli-eves i n hi:: thcory GC pe r sona l i t y t h a t
man i s com;,osed of t w o aspec-La n a i ~ e l y , pa,;:;sioli axd re:?.son. 7 - - ~ i c equa l ly m,~,in-tains th3.t man ha.3 tlic c ~ p 3 , c i t y .Car " s e l f
improvement" which b y t h e he1 ; o-? c i r cumota .nce~ , gra,du-
. a l l y develops a.13. t h e r e s t of our f a c u l t i e s aljd i n h e r i t e d
i n t h c s p c i ~ s as i n tile i,~!.dividua.i;;. 7 S u r p r i s i n g l y
bc i5cvcs that rcason i s tlic sourcc 01 al ien9 i ion . ':It
i s rcason thn-t cngerdcrs s e l f - r c s ~ e c l ; and r e f l c c t i o r ~
kh3t C O . Y ~ ~ ' ~ T ~ S i t , i t i s reason t h a t . turns manis back
E 3 the natui-c o f ,nan and pns:;iorL, the only way^ t o the
:is we s h a l l sct in t l ~ e cour'sc ol" the work, passion
much 2s his passions t ir ive him, his object ti is always
good, he i s the re fo re , a o t i n i ; in a.cco.rd.a.nci? with h i s na tu re
w i l l o r to follow the ri.nstinc-'cs of \: ss ion andnot t o r e a -
a l l r igh- t s and t h e rrieasure of' t he t r u e s e l f add f r e e -
NATURAT:i GOODN8SS . I S IM . E : I C I T Y ?.-= .... ,. .. ., ~ , . -. :.%.-.-..-a- -== --=- = - -=-->-::. .. .-. ...-.- :=-=---.=a
lde s h a l l mot wocced a? :it were by lmking a judge-
men-t. :idI~:.:,-t rloes Roussj.-;ea:u m i i a l i by natura.1 goodness o f
I 2 i c this coi~tc .~ i~- l ; ion i:; meant t o d i s p r o v e ..,. . two ~ p i r i j ~ ~ n s , ~:mr~o:!y, a;;;i.ins t -t;J:!il: ; io b'bese3.n thesi:: t;ha.t
uun i s nna-t,ur.;,lly wicked IUXI bcl:i.i;o;;e and two, 2.<~,7.j-126 1;
ihc. l;heologic ~l ' u c 2 l i c . f conc(:ri!.f ng 0ori:~;inal s i n , In
deformi:~ s t o r inchor-1,-i; i dea . of ' t h e S t ~ i . t ~ of n a t u r e ,
I t i s t h e r e f o r e from t h c idea, of s t a t e of ma tu re
and n a t x r a l man and the p o s i t i v e meanfng i t e x h i b i t s
f o r I{oussrea,u t h a t we h m e t o recourse t o f o r iblle meaning
of t he term ~~na tu ra .1 , goodness:;. ;mt a prcmonitiorl w i l l
be pt col icernir :~ h i s no t ion of thc s t z t c of n a t u r e
f o r he s:xys,
Let u s begin, t hen by l a y i n g fz:.cJcs a.sid.e, a s they don not a f f e c t tile ques t ion . The invca t iga . t ion i i ~ t o which we mo.y e n t e r . . . must ho t be considered as h i s t o r i c a l t r u t h s , but oilly 3,s m w c c ondi-i; i o n a l snd hypo t h e t i c a l reasonings , c a l c u l a t e d t o e x p 1 a . i ~ -the na tu re of t1:iings rr?.ther than t o n s c c r t a i n %.heir ac tua.l o r i g i n . I1
Th?c mca,ns t h a t w e h m ~ t o t:sko msn 2s w e know h i m
and them :i.bstr;l,ct fr'orn a11 supcrna:i;ura.1 cif! .s nnd from
those fzcu l ' t i e s whicl~. we can x c q t i r e only in t he course
of a 1on.g proces s of s o c i a l devc.10 .men+,. : ;Indeed, w e
h::ve t 3 3.3s t;rn,c-!; f r s m , socie ty i . - i ;s~lf , . I2 $e crznrlo-t t h e r e f o r e ohservc:: t h e s t a t e o f n a t u r e f o r
,, . :pior t o r s a s o n , one of -them deeply i n - t a r c s t i n g u s i n our own wel fa re and preserva.-;ion, xnd. t he o t h e r e x c i t i n g a m,tur;iL re zmgnr'.:.:.nc e a t s e c i n g any o-:her s e n s i b l e being, and ~~ar-titularly any of I.
our owr, s p a c i z s , s u f f e r pa in o r dea.bh.14
Though i n a n was s o l i t a r y , knowing no th ing o i
15 It i s no t neccssasy t o introduce '~hc idea. cf s o c i a b i l i t y
i n o rde r t o make him good, t h e iminc ip lzs a l r e a d y e x i s t e d
i n him, .4:3 n a t u m has cons t i t ;~~i :ed h m , t h e s e f e e l i n g s
na-Lure , W o i c t . of' na-turc - 1 r i o r t o a l l . k i n d s o f Fe f l ec -
t i ~ n s . S o t h c nc~tura l . rr, ~i s o long 7s lie i s ooncorned
wicked. TI(: i s na tu ra . l l y good.
d a t i a r i f o r ?ior;lli-by. An ::~.ct i s mor - l l y good once i t stems
from conformity wi-tli t hc sc t \ ' o p r i n c i plea of f e e l i n g .
. , . a l l r u l c s o f n- .~, tur ,d. r i g h t appear t o m e t o dne
der ived . . , r e l a t i v e t o the n a t u r e o i rnxtiv.16 The
i n t e r a c t i o n between t h z s c t ' v i l ~ motive f o r c e s 'becomes
A l l we can lmow wi th any c e r t a i ~ t y r(?s:pc.c-ting t h i s l a w i s t h a t , i f i t i s t o be a. 1 . 3 . ~ ~ n o t only -the w i l l s
of those i t obl ig2s must be s e n s i b l e of t h e i r subnission t o i t , but a l s o t o be ~ , t u r a . l , i t must come direc-ily L'ror! n.rl.turt. . . . . I7
Somi? th inkers may do~tb t if what i s c a l l e d :brighti;
and ;'duty;! ixrit the name, much l e s s servii lg as mutual
r e c i p r o c a l g~ounds f o r mor2lity. Roussea,uf s r& 91-y
might wel l be t h a t "we s h a l l no t be obliged t o make
man a p h i l o s o p h x before he i s a mnn:'IO and Ahat h i s
d u t i e s towards o the r s a r e no t st igul.ait .d I o r Bim only
by l a t t e r lessons of wisdom, and s o long as bhe does
not r c s i n t tho i n t e r n a l rim ml sr, ol' cornaassion, he w i l l
ncvcr hur t any other man . . . . I9 Here s tcms the fulcrum 01 the i n t c l l e ~ t u a ~ l enemity
be tween Rousseau and the fiLos Ihilosophes[i. We havc r 3 - 3 - * --J --= =a. , -. - --.-
t o bear i n uind t h a t Rousscau i s a romantic f i g u r e
of t h e f i r s t order. I f our moral l i f e depends on our
fundameilia1 impdlses o r passions, i t would not be
s u r p r i s i n g if ho a t tacks the r a t i o n a l i s t content ion
of Vol t a i r e and Diderbi t w!lo maintain t h a t moral educ-
a t i o n depends on e x t i r p a t i n g t h ~ passions.
Fcr Rousseau, t o t r y t o d e s - ~ r o y them w i l l be
absurd and u s e l e s s , i t would be t o des t roy o r :overcome
na tu re , t o reshape God1 s handiwork:;. 2 0 hora.1 ".evelopment
f o r Rousseau i s the extension of the fundamental passion
of se l f - love . FFZxtend se l f - love t o o thers and i t i s
trsnsforined i r i t o v i r t u e , a v i r h e -that has foundation
i n the h e a r t of every one o f us::. 21 1% t h e r e f o r e be-
comes necessary t h a t s e rve as a foundation am3 lsw f o r
mora l i ty , these pass ions of n a t u r e should became mi-
v e r s a l i z a b l e .
Vi r tue becomes ilo more than obedience t o his law
of n a t i n c . A s wc s h a l l see l a t t e r i n the S o c t a l .--- = --a
C o n t r x t , v i r t u e and mora l i t y i n t h e S t a t e consis-t- i n . - .-- --a >
confofmity t o t h ~ ibGenera,l W i l l r f - - the law o f the
Statc;. l{r-lusseau 1~qua11y b e l i e v e s t h a t man o f aaAure
has no pcnchm~t t o v i ce , immorali ty o r disobecl4ience t o
l a w o f na tu re . Vice i s the re fo re not, no.turs,l t o man.
It has i t s o r i g i n clnewhere. Man i s j u s t t oo simple
t h a t be cannot deviatc? fro111 n a t u r e and n.s long as he
conforms t o i t , lie i s good. Nan has as it were no t acq-
u i r e d -Yne sophis t ic - . t ions of civilizat- on. I t is th i s
s i m p l i c i t y t h a t made m a n ;imost n a t i v e t o the vo ice of
consciencei:. S i m p l i c i t y means a d i s p o s i t i o n , irzvaila-
b i l i t y wi th which msn l i s t e n s t o and opens himself
(kernos is ) t o o t h e r s without d e c i e t . This i s the t r u e
philosophy, wi th which we rmst l e a r n to 3e contentrf . 22
t h a t , , . a t t he bottom o f our he ir-Ls an i n n a t e ,minci-
pie; o f j u s t i c e and v i r t u e by which . .. we judge our own
a.ctions o r those of o t h e r s t o bc good or bads# e x i s t
" the p r i n c i p l e of conscien.ce:;. 2'3 Now conformism with
these n a w a ) in s t inc t s , which as far as man remains
natural8 f i l l y f o r m the foundation of Rousseauls sensi-
b i l i t y . To e x i s t i s t o f e e l and fee l ing i s prior t o
reason and we had feel ings before we had ideas. What
I f e e l t o be r i g h t is r i g h t , what I f e e l t o be wrong i s
wrong ,,. i t is ohly when w e haggle with the aaconscience
t h a t we . , , loose our s impl ic i ty '~ .24 To be natural ly
good therefore i s t o f o l l o w the path of ones i n s t i n c t s
since i n t h i s consis ts the law of morality. Reason
is therefore the source o f e v i l ,
Of all the q u a l i t i e s with which m r m is endowed by
nature, freedom according t o Rousseau i s the most pre-
cious nnd vrlua.ble. It cons t i tu tes the e s s e n t i a l i t y J
quidity o i lllmts beingness. It i s the hallmark o f the
difference between man and animals. Man and animal
are bothmachines of nature ['with t h i s difference, t h a t
i n the operations of brutes , nature i~ so&e agent
whereas man has some share in h i s own operatinn, i n h i s
character as a f r e e agent'l.25 The one chooses and
refuses by i n s t i n c t , the other from an a c t of f r ee w i l l .
Given Rousseauls mechanistic conception o f nature ,
he means t h a t while i t is absoluteu mechanism' t h a t
operates i n animals, man a c t s by f rpar t ia l mechanismff.
Nature l ays her commands on every animal and the brutes obey her voice. Man receives the same impulsion, but a,t same time knows hiniself a t l i b e r t y t o acquiesce o r r e s i s t . 26
This na tu r a l freedom i s the bas,is f o r a l l o ther
na tu r a l endowments, It. i s t h a t which p o ? e l s man t o
see h i s i n h v e n t goodness and equa l i ty with others .
Freedbin gives ~ a l le t o man qua man, and gives him the
propensity o r a . b ~ l ~ t y f o r choice and i t i s t h i s clmra-
c t e r i s i t i c t ha t enables t o shoose h imsel f , , . . i ~ i s
pm ' i c lua r ly in h i s consciousness of his l l b r t y , t h a t
h i s qgra1it.y i s d i sp l ayed i t , 27 The d i f ference fi: i s pre-
c i s e l y t h i s , brutes necessari3y obey nature , while man
i s conscious of h i s obedience.
Liberty being a g i f t which men rec ieve from na-ture
a s mcn, none has t he r i g h t t o t r ans f e r it. Liberty i s
therefore as ina l i enab le as it i s valuable. Slaves
renounce t h e i r l i b e r t y and plunge i n t o iEnon-beine;;f - a being f o r o thers X - ffDasmani; - inauthent ic being, To
lose ones freedom i s even t o do offence t o n a t u r e ,
. . . as l i b e r t y is the noblest f a cu l t y o f man, i s i t degrading our very nature reducing ourselves t o the l e v e l , . . of mere sla.ves .,. and even an a f f ron t t o the author of our beings, t o renounce the mos t precilous o f a l l h i s g i f t s .28
He adds I f , . . f o r t h i s wodld be t o s e l l h i s own l i f e
. .. by giving up the one we d e p a d e our beingsCt,29
Liberty being a g i f t of na ture , each person recieves
an imperativerf of nature. It i s a t l e a s t doubtful whe-
t h e r any one has the r i g h t t o d ive s t himself Bf t he l i b -
e r t y which i t i s necedsary f o r a l l t o recover a t any cos t ,
Now we can proceed t o 3.5 what i s Roussmu's com-
cept ion of freedom ? It may not be any easy t o fu rn i sh
a ready n ~ s w e r , w i - t u t re l ' iect ing on h i s idea of i n t e r
s u b j e c t i v i t y , bot ' l i n the S t a t e of na ture and ~ i n soc ie ty .
I t i s an idea r i f e i n Roussean t h a t man i s byma.ture
"So l i t a ry . ; ,30 a being t h a t has no idea of comuna,l l i f e ,
. ' l iv ing dispersed a.mong other animals .3I A s celswhere i n
t h e Discourses, he portrays man as having nothing or *
" 3 F - m - .*. *. - L.
l i t t l c L O d o with f~Qows of h i s own kind, s ince by
nature hi. could s a t i s f y h i s few wants of na ture ,
L a t us conclude then t h a t man i n a S t a t e of na ture , wandering u p and down the f o r e s t . . , i s equal ly a s tanger t o a l l t i e s , ne i t he r s tanding i n need of h i s fellow c rea tu res , ., hein s e l f s u f f i c i e n t and subjec t t o few pa.ssions.32
Let us assume then t h a t what Rousseau means is t h a t
man i n t e r f e r e d very l i t t l e i n the a f f a i r s another , Ithaving no de s i r e t o hur-L : , I . He would then take freedom
t o mean absolute :independence t o follow ohe s passion
of na ture . T% i s qn ahsolute independence o n k t h e law
oT nature . This idea o f freedom was t r ans fe r red i n t o
the body po l - i t i g t o mean dependence and conformism t o t he
w i l l of" the S ta te . Freedo'--) f o r Roussenu has
d e t e r m i n i s t i c and conformist character is-Lic . 1% i s a
freedom I r o n de $ndence t o dependence,
B r h a p s , Roussea,us s conception of freedom w i l l be-
come c l e a r e r i f wc see h i s model. bSf i n t e r p s r s n n a l r e l a -
t i o n s h i p t h a t ob ta ins i n what he c a l l s "S ta t e bf SocietyP!.
Rousseau speaks o f t h i s s t a t e wi th t h e g r e a t e s t contempt
of h e a r t , To a 2111 trea.trnent of t h i s .,!State of Society; :
t r e a t L 1 t h e next chap-t e r , but s u f f i c e s f o r
now t o s i f t t h e a spec t t h a t confirms the present i nqu i ry .
I t i s Roussea.u~s oyinion t h a t rnu l t i3 l ic i$y of wants
gave r i s e t h e formation of va r ious i d e a s t h e
n a t u r a l man, t he most pernicious them a l l beigg the i d e a
of F f p i v a t c propertyij from which a rose dependence and
o t h e r , : v i l s wi th which s o c i e t y i s cidentif ied.
He says :;what t i e s o f dependence could t h e r e Be am( ,
men w i t k ~ l a t possession ?ii33. Now i n the rc l la t ions be i-.-
ween man and manbk t h e worst t h a t can ha,ppen i s f o r
one t o f ind himself ~t the mercy of another i i , 74
Unfreedom i s dependence of an indbidual on a ffellow
and the development of our f a c u l t i e s encourage t h i s
i n t h e soc ie ty . Reason does no t al low man t o fol low the
impulse o f passion, t h i s i s how reason be&oines the a
sourcc of a l i e n a t i o n ,
. . , a l l t he h~1m~a.n f a c u l t i e s developed and i n f u l l p1a.y . , . i t apjcared advan- tageous t o one mm t o have provis ions enough f o r two, proper ty was introduced
-196 On the other hand, f r e e and independent as nen were beforc , they were now, i n consequence of a 1.1~1- t i ~ l i c i ty of new wants, brought i n t o subjdc t ion; a s i t were, t o a l l na tu re , and p a r t i c u l a r l y t o one another , and each became i n degree a s l ave even i n becoming masters of o ther men. I f r i c h , they stood i n need of t h e se rv ices of o the r s , i f poor, 01 t h e i r a s s i s t ance ,35
A s Rousseau denies man anmthing os s o c i a l na tu re ,
h i s view being $he very opposite of Ma,to and A r i s t o t l g
i t means t h a t i n h i s not ion of freedom as independence,
mutual dependence as i s engcndorcd by s o c i e t y , makes
man no longer o lxdient t o the laws of na,ture w r i t t e n i n
h i s h e a r t . Man has ins tead become a s l ave t o laws of
s o c i e t y which a r e not natura.1 t o him. F ina l ly f o r
Rousscnu, t l c idea, of freedom i s always anchored on
the idea of 1a.w prescribed. by xlature. A s a, r e s u l t of
h i s a l i e n a t i o n i n s o c i e t y , Rousscau sought i n k t h e
body , . ~ o l i t i c , a new kind of law t h a t w i l l he ,prescribed
t o man i n the manner of the n a t u r a l l a w , obedknce
t o which w i l l be frreedom. To be f r e e i n the S t a t e
of na ture i s t o be t o t a l l y independent of a l l persons
and t o be dependent on the n a t u r a l 1a.w i n the same
manner, t o be %ree i n the body g o l i t i c i s t o -
depend tota1l.i om the laws of the S t a t e .
2. Rousseau, J .<Ti --.*. Discourse -- z=.--7.....-.-. *=-:- on .-..-.-- . Inecpr~ , l i ty , .-.. -=: ~- ( ~ ~ ~ d o n , Deut & Sons, 1950) T r a n s by G , D . C o l c . Po38.
3. Rousseau; L . Op. . - . C i t . P.191
6, A . r i s t o t l c , ~k 11, ChI, i7.23, trans ( ond don, ; 9 6 2 ),
1 2 . N i s b e t , 3. .__.__Y.. The Socia.1 __ .+._ __._.i....___,.__ Ih i loso ;$~qs_ , (Mew Yo:rk Bckw-t books , 1983) P.21.
-21-
Op. C i t . P.77. L . D A _* --. .
Op. C l i t . P. In-:. --.- . . ---- 02, C i t . P.192
C . * L L- -P-a
which something o r somebody becomes o r ( h a s become)
a l i e n o r ( s t r a n g e ) to someone o r something;: .2
Today t h e term hz.s acquired a wide rarlge o f u se . It
r e f e r s t o iPan ex-bra-ordinary v a r i e t y of psycho-social
d i s o r d e r s , i n c l ~ c l l l l g 1023s o f Self, a,nkiety, a,,pntlly,
s o c i a l d i sorga .n iza t ion , lone l jmess , a t m i z a t i o c ,
pe s s ix i sax 2nd l o s s of b e l i e f and value;; . ' j
Aliena-Lion i s a tu-rming aw:?.y, a d e v i a t i o n fr.orn norma-
P i t y , .process o r r e s u l t o f a 2rocdss , by which a
s e l f becomes a l i e n t o i - t s e l . f , t o i t s own na.ture; : .4
It i s p e r t i n e n t o t n ~ t e t h a t whcnev;.~ a,'licnat:ion i s
-23 -
ta lked of i n philosophy, i t i s normal-ly understood i n
one of these scnses . Howcvcr some th inke r s l i m i t it
e i t h e r t o i t s p s y c h o l o g i c ~ J , psychia-iirical o r ; s o e i & -
l o g i c ~ i relevance.
Marx and Fanon used the term i l l i t s psydbc-
s o c i a l con t e x t . ?pr J.I'::~lor; psychological a l i e n a t i o n
O f t h o Negro i s t h e f o ~ x ~ d a t i x f o r h l s soci:,-economic
a l i e n a i l o n . The ITegro f $ r s l; alienates himself from
hlrnself l ~ y developing i u ~ f c r i o r i t y com7slt ss i n a wa,y o f
intcllec t ~ r a l , c u l tura; imposi lr ..! and l o s s o f id -en t i ty .
ilcgcl who 1s l h ~ f x r s t p h i l o s ~ l p ~ i c r of alienat-a on,
uses thc - t~r rn s u b j e c t i v e l y ~~itl-, r 'cference t o S p i r i L
( phenoi!lcnology of t h e M-ind ) 2-113 t o r i g h t ( Zhiihosophy
of r i g h t ) . A t t h e l e v e l of t h L s p i r i t , f o r degel , what-
ever i s , i s t h ~ ~ f a b s o l u t c i d e a o r mind o r abso lu te
s p i r i t - pure C O I ~ C ~ O U S ~ ~ S S : ; . 5 The absolu te s e l f i s
engage(' i n a d i a l e c t i c a l p r o ~ ~ t ss of a l i e 2 a t i o n and
dealicna-t ion. ,#?he s p i r i t i s conciously aware o f i t s e l f
as i t s own workd of the world as i t s e l f & ; . G
Since t h e s p i r i t i s f r e e , i t can e x t e r i o r i z e i t s e l f
t h o u g h c r e a t l o n and can thus abandon i t s a c t u a l present
s t r u c t u r e i n o r d e r t o acqui re a, new and more corn ~ l e x
one. Again it can c r e a t a t ranscendent world cbf fa . i th
Mhich i s opoosed -to t h e a c t u a l . When t h i s happens
withouf: r recognizing i t s c o n t e x ~ i n the octua.1 present , i t
becorws a l i ena ted .
There are thus l e v e l s of a J iena t ion of the S ~ i r i t .
~ e g e l ex!resses the t w o levels of" a l i ena t i on CIT the
s p i r i t -thus - The one i s the ac tua l world, -tha.t o f s e l f - estrangement, the o ther i s t n a t which the s p i r i t c o n s t m c t s f o r i t s z l f i n -the e the r of pure consciousness, r n i s i n g i t s e l f above the f i r s t . The s~:c!jnd world. being constru- -Led in oopositio-ri .xG con-trast t o t h a t e s t - rangement, i s 81ilei; c;i; t h a t account not f r e e from i t , on the contrary-. It i s only the other fo rm of' t h a t estrangement, wh5ch cons i s t s prec ise ly ix. ha.ving a conscious exis tence i n two s o r t s o f worlds and embrac ss bo-\;he 7
The a l i ena t i on of the Spirit cons i s t s i n Itlie. l o s s
of consciouness, i n the awareness of thc ; i o the~nes s : : .
E i the r i n the attemp t o objccti .fy t he s e l f or attempt
to en te r i n t o supra-collsciouness . I n t h i s regard
the s p i r i t f a i l s t o regard i t s e l f as the universa l .
The problem of a l i ena t i on i s eyual ly c lose ly connected
with the problem of freedon iil: Regel. 3y a l i cne t i ng
i t s e l f f r o m i t s e l f , the S p i r i t i s no longer from
i t s new :nodes o:f exis tence. iiousseau would agree with
Kegel t h a t a l i ena t i on cons i s t s i n the d e p a r t u ~ e from
e
the a c tua l o r na ture but w o - ~ l d in tense ly abhore t11.c
contention tha,t a f f i rmat ion o f the s e l f d s p n d s on
tota.1 self-consciousness and knolt~ltrlii;~, sitice r e f l e c t i o n
i s the source of a l i ena t i on of man,
Pr0x the soc io -po l i l i c a l rehulin al iena-t ion i s
t r e a t ed as insurbordinat ion. ':It i s the op l~os i t ion o f
consciousness t o the yower aid wi:a.lth of the S t a t e , and
a l so i n the opposition of cdnsciousness t o the s o c i a l
~ub~ ta r l c e i ( . 8 accord in^ i.;) ;-Ii:gel, the ;!base consciouness*
i s a l i ena ted becausc ; t i t looks upcn the Skate au tho r i t y
and power as a chain., as sornethillg suppressing i t s sepe-
T o r Negel as f o r Rousseau, the St .2 . t~ is the t r u e
p ic ture of the inli ividual. 'Yis ~ ~ G c t u r c rhf the Hegclian
S t s t c corres33onds t o t h a t givec by liousseau i n the
Socia l Cmt rac t . Rousseau would th6rei'orc not f a i l --.,x =.>* --- .-
t o endorse He;;elfs idea of p o l i t i c a l a.lienatioi1.
Rousseau would l i k e t o igfo:xe:: the r e h e l l itto be f r e e i t .
I n con t ras t with Ilegei, 17'euerba.ck and Ma.rx attacked
Hegel s notion of a l i e n a t ion a s ab s t r ac t . geuerback
has c r i t i c i s e d t h a t HegcZts concept of lhilosophy
.'. i s nothing more than r e l i g i o n brought i n t o thought
and developed by thought, a d tha-L i t i s t o be equally
condemned as another form and mode of exis tence of
human a l i ena t ion . ; . 10 Hcgeat s Bilosophy did mot; take
i n t o account t h e ex i s t en t i a .1 problem of man. lHegelts
d i a l ec t i ca .1 rela.ti .cn he c r i t i c i s e d a s a b s t r a c t , he the re -
f o r reduced i t t o socia.1 r e l a t i o n of Inan t o ma. i n
concre te iw.teria.1 l i f e .
Following his f o o t s t e ? s , $Iasx though aknowledging
I-legclls g r a s p of a l i e n a t i o n s f rnan as a proccss of s e l f -
c r e a t i o n , denounced the abs-Lractness o f such a.1-icilation.
He sgrecs wi th Feucrbach t h a t a l i e n a t i o n i s concre te .
He r e j e c t s Hegel ' s con ten t ioa t1ia.i; ob j e c t i f i c a - t i o n i s a
takion o f tho absolutc s g i r i t , i'7ar.x viows t he S t a t e as
whereby privnt,e property 1s acq~r i r cd by princes and
nobles wi thout t h e r e s p ~ n s i b k l i t y o f a n e l i ~ r a t i r ~ g the
s o c i 8 ; l ~ o n d i t i o n : ~ . I1 The S-[Late i s t h e r e f o r e an
Feumbnck's c r i t i c i s i . : religion i s t h e r e f o r e only
one anong many f o m s by which m,m i s a l i e n a t e d . He i s
a l i e n a t e d frori the products of h i s economic a c t i v i t i e s ,
s o c i a l a c i t i v i t i e s and s a c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s .
F i r s t man i s es t rcmged from h i s prcduct ive t a c t i v i t y i n w k i i c 2 hc sliould f i n d se l f -fbll-
f ilmen t ( ---- LIEconmic . -.,- - --- - .- Manuscri&, --- . then, i n t h e d i v i s i o n o f l abour wllere t h e worker competes a g a i n s t his fe l low man who becomes a pawn and means f o r h i s personal aggrondi- zement ( , G ~ ~ & a - , ~ ~ ~ d ~ - ~ ~ ~ @ ~ ) ~ i n money (Capi ta lA, --- -=
and. i n the forination of cla ,ss , thc very not ion of which iiiiplies d e s t i t u t i o n s t ruggle . 1 2 (Manifesto ).
Marx therefore loca t ing a l ien$t ion on the socio-ecmomic
realm gives i t a human face. For him a l i ena t i on i s , a
dcnni l of.. humanity-, ~ i r f s e l f - f u l l f i l n ~ e n t and proper a.c tu-
a l i z a t i m and u t i l i z a t i o n of 11unan p o t e n t i & l i t i e s . I n
essence i t i s r e l a t ed t o -the problcm. : ~f freedom, It i s
unfreedom which due t o the oocia.1 structure of ;the S t a t e
docs no t enable man t o reap t h e f u l l 3onefi.t Sf' h i s s o c i a l
a c t i v i t i e s . It i o a aen ia l .;.'of osamcc:: which P4arx p l ace s
uri f r ecdor~ .
0nc i i p i ~ i o n ai:ol,;.t a.liena.t;icjn & tha-t riot every negative
situa-tj.c.)n t h a t ex i s ts m;y be callcc? a . l ienat ion. For
instancd a lame m a n wlio i s ~ i i a o l e to get c.t whatcver he
wants Uiy nclt be sa id t o hi. a1icna:ted. Alienat ion i s n o t
a natu~rrzl phenomenon. I' t, ir! U a 'causedv phelionmton ,and
always c a r r i e s witli i t 1ii::)e of remedy. . ~ > y extreme s i t u s -
t ion without prospect of rcnedy ma.y bc ca l l ed mmething
e l s e . Alienat ion always c n r r i c s with i t a hope of
Man i s h o r n for^ freedom, i t i s t h i s fretfJ!am t h a t both
enables him t o i d e n t i r y h i s a l ie i la t ion and a f fo rd him the
. incent ive oi f ree ing himself. . ' l i c n a t i ~ n c a r r i e s a pos i t ive
meaning. I t can only bc: concerned w i . t h cxis-Lence arid
not Being. I t i s a p o s s i b i l i t y of exis tence . S a r t r e
says t h a t a l i e n a t i o n
i s thc negative p ~ o c e s s by which a sub jec t makes liinlself o the r than nimself by v i r t u e of a constra.int, which i s capable of being removed on i n i t i a t i v e of the subjec t himsclf.13
the ~ios t i~npor tan"r ,~ l te rnat ive would seen &o be t h a t
i n every cdntext i n which these condit ions of -k the possi-
b i l i t y f o r the use of t l i t concept of a l i e n a t i n n a r e no t
t o a. new crca tur t? o f n highcr n:iturc. We s h a l l see i n
the course c;f t h i s work, - t h a t -t;hi:3 idea , of a l i ena t i on i s
contained i n Housscau.
genesis of a l ienat io i i . That i s the ~ilomcnt man stopped
following the d i c t a t e s of his passion. Thc outcome i s
t h a t the way 0.i rcason introd-aced 9, kind of s o k i a l l i f e
which denied man h i s n a t u r a l q u a l i t i e s . Man iristoad
became wicked c m d a s l ave t o h i s fellow and the worst i s
t h a t he f 2 i l e d t o follow the law prescribed t o him by
nature whkch w a s t h e only mems t o h i s freedom. To de- b
a l i ena t e mzn, Rousseau sought i n t h e Soc ia l Contract, w u k .
- *- -,.---. - - -,---- . 'law w i l l . 'L-kc the pldlce of the law i ~ f n t . turc , dbcdience
L t o wliich w i l l rcs . tore h i s tatu us quo.
S OCI>jT'I? A . ALIEN.hTPCE$ . _ _ .= __.,. .._ .* ..-.L:wa-...--..=...I .- ,=_.ia-. I_--- .
The b a s i c i d e a . that through Rousseau i n -the f i r s t
two Discourses , the Discourse or1 the A r t s and 3k iences -. ---. . -:-.- I ._ v -_-.- ., _.-. . . . .i..~. l-.-L-._____- 1 .. N_ln=lm-._-.-
and the . Discourse .- .. . . . ... . . . ..=. - on - ... .-..- I n e q u a l i t y .- --. .. ..----.;.;-.A, , . . . ,p resmted t o R cade~ny i n
n i j on i s 21 icna t ion . I n the f i r s t Discourse , he made i t
c l e & tha% t h e advancement i n -the a r t s a ~ d Sciances
co r rup t no r ; . . l i t y . I n t41c second, he s t a t e s t h a t the
o r i g i n i)f ir:equ,ality ammong rim i s tracea;,ie -to thu . i & e a
of yrivn,t4, proper ty a11 being tilt mi;conie o f the c i v i -
liza.tio:-l. th3.t , - ~ r o ~ n o t ~ ~ ~ s a ~ t s a.nd s c i c n c ; ~ s .
I% is Roussen.uPs b a s i c cc.)~i-tc.~;-Lion t1ia-t Soc i e ty
c o r r u p t s ma= and dcriic.:~ t h c v.:;t. o f - t i ' ose f a c u l k i e s w i th
which '!lo c ~ u l d have made. b e s t u s t i l l l i f e . We have
shown i n -tile previou:; cha;::t dr. h3.s , idea, o:i. na tu re . \?e
s l i a l l shorkv b r i e f l y , t he S t a t e o f th i r~gs i n S o c i e t y , t o
be a.ble t o pin-down, the a l i e n a t i o n which r e s u l t s from i t .
It i s i:ousseauqs convinc-kinr, t h a t wants a t v a r i o u s
ilrnodcs of exis+,cncu . . . presenter: d i f f i c u l t i e s and i t
became nccesamy t h a t man should l e a r n how t o surinoun-i;
tilela';. I T It -211~s became hecessary t h a t m a n should t ranscend
h i s n a t u r a l s t a t e o f simple wants a x 3 gratifica.kj.or.; toge-
they i n proporJcion as t h e liuman r a c e grew more xnimcrous-
This s i t u a t i o n qu ick ly introduced i n mall s mind ; per
cep t ions of c c r t a i n r e ln . t i on !x-twec:n. -f;lzcrn:r, 16 he
r e l a t i o n s which we denote by t h e terms " g r e a t , snlall,
s t r o n g , wcak, s w i f t , s l o w ... almost; i n s e n s i b l y compared
a t needs , must have .produced i n man a kind of r e f l e c t i o n
which would i n d i c a t e t o him -i,lii- p r e c m t i o n s most ncce-
s s a r y t a h i s securi t ,yl~.I7
T k firs-1; expmsioi is of t h e human h e a r t werc t he
e f f e c t s .JP :love1 s i t u a t i o n s . Fi rs t - was t h e formation of
fmi l i t s :'which m i t c d husbar~ds a,nd wives, f a t h e m , and
c h i l ~ J r i , a under one r ~ o f ,I8 Every fami ly becqme a
].it k lc socic-ly. Ncxt , 8;tl i is c poch r,C f i r a t r e v o l u t i o n
which os-i;a,blished m c i d i s tinf:u.ished f m n i l i e e . . . i n t r o -
duced a k ind of proper-ty, i n i - t s u l f the source iof a.
thousmd qun.rrels and confl ic-Ls i t , 2 0 Thcrci c m e t o e x i s t
thu irlea (if t h e s u r v i v a l of t h e strongest- and mcm l o s t
t h e i e p u l s e ~ ) f l i a t u r a l cornbxm;;io:1 o r p i ty .
Rousseau makes i-i ; c 1 ~ a . r t h a t t h i s kdea of proper ty
which came t o be as a r e s u l t o f .the developmeht of
r e f l e c t i o n brought w i th i t , cha ins ol o t h e r un-thinka,ble .. - v i c e s , j:iuinm vani. t y :;.rose a i d o r i g i n a l s i n was conmi t t e d
by t h e f i rs t man who ernplcyed h i s mental powers f o r h i s
o m xlvrznc: cinent . XJ~= liousseau , th!, S ta t r , of Bocie t y
which introduced a new iliiilmsiol2 -La ~h~~xuan r e l a t i o n s
forced ~ r x 'LO s e p e r r t e w i t l l h i s n a t u ~ c . He l e f t t he
l a w a i ' n a t u r e <md followccl ihc law of r ea scn , which t a u g h t
rnw t o be wicked and a slave t o f 3 l l o w man. By fo l lowing
h i s na tu ra .1 g o o i t m s s as he :i.v,ro~~ld be g l a d t o sw m o t h e r
of h i s k ind suffer G .2I
1-'i; is the of rc:zson that b e g e t s t h e abuse o f
our f a . c u l t i c s . He said, ::I v e n t u r e a lmos t t o a f f i r m
tha t t h e S ta - t e nP r c f l . ~ c t i c ; n i s one contr:!.ry -Lo na tu- re
a n d th;i,t man who m e d i t a t e s i s a, d e t r a v e d ml-in ::. 22 k!h2 t
Rousaea;urn~.anu by s a y i n g that t h e S t a t e oi socbe.'iy a l i e -
n a t e s i s t h a t t h e .kind o f life o l ~ t a i n e d as t h e r s o u l t
o f i n t e r p e r s o n a . l i n t e r a c t i o n ii:~. t h e s o c i e t y , b roke w i t h
t h e c h a i n of o b l i g a t i o n that has h i t h e r - t o e x i s t e d i n
h i s n a t v . r e *- d i s o b e d i e n c e t o the l a w o f n a t u r e .
" -, ?.(he rue:?, is c l e a r i n t h e s - t ae~nen t - q u o t e d h'bove m d
i s v e r y i711.2Lch comu1o-r: i l l t h e I l i s c o u r s e s , t h a t iilcm f o l l o - c.:. .- .:.. ... :. . ..--.-.
wing tl-i.o i m p l s c of iia,tu.re or pas:3ioii was good. Iiezson
was c7.l~~.~.y.s a t .the: s e ~ v i c e of pa.ssion, bu.t t h e moment
n e c e s s i t i e s i n t r o d u c e d t h e i ~ a ~ e r i a l i s n ! o f rea,aon,
inan l&s t t h a t e s s e n t i s . 1 rla.'cure a d c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e
natur,: . l cowlcc-t ion t o p r o f i t a b l e s o c i a l l i f e .
Tlic idea , i s n o t t1ia.t P,owsca,u c i i ~ d : ~ . i n s th '
S t a t e o: s o c i e t y , b u t one foundcd on r e a s o n s o l e l y
f o r :;-through Zee:Liw ,. ri3,l;her -than intellect^, ' . t h a t b
one apprehends trii-ti:!T:. 23 IIe s a y s t h a t he would n o t
a.dvoca.te a, r e t u r n t o a. S - b a t e of n a t u r e f o r man i s not
des t ined . f o r s ~ ~ c l n a. r e - tu rn .
Thus, though men had beco~ne l e s s pa t i en t and n a t u r a l compassion had a l ready suf fered some diminuation t h i s period of expqnsion of thd human f a c u l t i e s , keeping a, j u s t mean between the indo- lence of the ur imi t ive S t a t e and the pe tu lant ac- t ivi ty of our egoism must have been t h c happicst and most s t a b l e d f epochs . . very bes t man could ex x r i e n c e . 24
If therefme w e understand the log ic of h i s thought, . Rousseau i s not ai; t isocia.l . Onc of coG.rsc expccts t h i s
frojn hFs denunciation of s o c i ~ t y , the type of ,society
which exis-ted i n h i s own t i ~ n c i s nr,c founded nn the law
of reason due -to the ir,flueliccs of c i v i l i z a t i n n and
the duveloprnent of a r t s and Sciences. It would be a
contrndf-t.ion i n terms f o r man al ready possessed the
impu1::c c of socia. 'oil i ty. Man o f na ture i s &erefore
not specil"ical1y P,ousseauss ilcal. 11 r e t u r n t o the S t a t e
4 of n a t u r ~ ; i s n e i t ~ c c possiblc uor desirable. ;! Once
w e abandon t h a t S t d t e , w e compel a l l our fel lows t o do
l ikewise , s ince we r e ndcr i t inposs ib le f o r any one
i n the midst of c i v i l soc ie ty -Lo l i v e the l i f e o f
primit ive i s o l a t i o n ; : . 25
The orimitivc man i n h i s Sores t although la, happy
and f ' ?e , i s n ( ~ t the h ighes t r ,bjzct of emulathon, H i s * higher r;:>ture i-, und,,r d t ~ ~ c l o p c d and those charac ter -
i s t i c s which a r c the rnzrlr of a man, :;reasonbi and
rconscierlce ;' a r e dormmt .
Beawr~ont, he discu,sses t he rnoral condi t ion of %he
i s o l a t e d savage thus :
C o ~ s c i e n c e i s no!x&t i n t h e man who m made no cornpa;risons and ha.s never known rela , t ; ionshi ps . I n tlia t condi 'k im, rnan knows no th ing but liiniself, ha does n o t s e e h i s we l l being e i t h e r opposed t o , o r i:a. conformi~ty wi th t h a t of myone e l s e ; he a ~ i t h e r h a t e s no r loves anyone l i i l l i ted t c 11hgsical i n s t i n c t s a lone , he i s no-thing, he i s a b e . . s t , t?!..a.-t i s wl1a.t I have shown i n ny ;Discourse Sur L1 . . . - -. x ->-- - . ----=
I n s g a l i t e . . - .= = . -=- 26 J
TL1.c: primitive rnm infa.& knew i lo thing of s o c i a l i f e - political l i f e , Life i n t h e p o l i t i c a l S t a t e 5s the highest
and L-11,: be s t kind J i' li Sc . The e r r o r s or" reason can be mctirEied by c o n s u l t i n g
conscicncc. I n h i s defence of . Emile .- -- - 3 he w r i t e s ;!It is
t o d i scovor h.ow t o -wevent them from becoming ( t h u s )
wicked t h a t I haxe devoted ny book. . . . - 2 7 Whait is
meant b;y ' i l i ena t ion t h e r e f o r e i s t h e masuse of f a c u l t i e s .
And why s ~ c i e t y i s t h 6 source (>.lf a l i e n a t i o n i s because
i t 2ngenders t h e kind of s o c i a l l i f e t h a t encourages
t h i s misuse. JTature gi.ves a.l.1 he 7~r>wer we need -to
make our. s c l v e s v i r h o u s 2nd Ina,?py. Jn e f f e c t , what
l1ouscea.u in t ends t o exp la in by i3,iiena.-tion i s - . .. how the s o u l m d pass ion of men i n s e n s i b l y changed t h e i r v z ~ y na--ture ; why our wants and p leasures i n t h e end s e e k new o b j e c t s :mil why the origintaal rnm having vanished by degree, Soc ie ty o f f e r s t o ;us only an assembly o f a r t i - f i c i a l . r m n ;ad f a . c t i t i ~ u s pass ions , wb.ich
are the work of these new r e l a t i o n s and withaut sny r c a l foundation i n ruhuze.28
What Rousseay means -to say about soc i e ty and a l i e -
na t ion comes down tr6 t h i s , t h a t s o c i s 1 l i f e R.S i t
exis ted in ]?race of h i s time, engendered l i f e h f reason.
This l i f e of rea,son ( c iv i l i z a . t , i on ) encouraged wickedness,
dependence, comparisons re:.;ui.-tin6 from inequa l i ty of
powers, The w o r s t , i t enthroned t h e law of lbhe s t ron-
ge s t and s lavery resul t in( ; from t h i s inequa,li$y, This
kind of pseudo-Social. l i f e closed man's e - ' r s bo the
vo ice o f na ture and he :no lbnger followed the 1 a . w ~
of freedom o r i g i n a l l y prescribcci t o him, The l i f e o f the
S t a t e o f Society i s based not the y ~ i n c i y l m o f l a w
of frccdorn but on t he law of the s t ronges t , hence i t s
a l i ena t i on .
R O PERTY Ah'?> INEQUALITY AS SOURCES OF ALIENATION =c*- -=---*a . , =---- - -* .. % - ->- . ... --* . -------- -&,,
It i s a bas ia assuini~tion of nousseau t h a t man
i s cr:,:lted n a t u r a l l y equal. Elhat hc t h r e f o r c r ~ f e r s
t o a s ; :yhysical" inequa l i ty i s not inequa l i ty i n the
sense that; na ture nas one forin of compensating one
form f o r another , What wc a r e conceeancd with herc
is a no de o f e x i s t e n t i a l a l i ena t i on is t h a t designated
iimoral inequal i ty ' f . It i s kilis s .mquali t y thak has
given force t o t h a t moral d i s t i n c t i o n iirny;i and ;'your",
as m o r a l d i s t i n c t i o n c a m t o e x i s t i n s o c i e t y . Row how
d id i n e q g a l i t y come t o e x i s t among men ? Following
t h e expansion o f human r e n s o n 9 incqua . l i ty of t a l e n t s
, -. czme t o be. tl&qualf t y might h m e been s u s t a i n e d ha.d
t he t a l e n t s of i n d i v i d u a . 1 ~ been equal i ; . 29
Men devc.loped t h e ( f e c l i ' , I : I f o r p re fe rences as they
b e g m t o take b i f f e r e n c c s bttween o b j e c t s i n t o account
sucli as thc : : ideas o f b ~ a u t y m e r i t , handsomest, t h e
f irst s L t p -towa,rdo i u .qyo . l i t y . Tho i d e a of pmpes-ty
following such, in- t roduc~cl t , h ~ ~ V O C B 1 kind of i n e q u a l i t y
t11at d ~ t e r n i n e d t h o m t t e r n o ' r :5z ia l l i f e . It c r e a t e d
clependence and rn::de m,-n un f r ee ;rj?d s l a v e t o a f e l l ow
It i n s t i t u t e d
which made man 3, judge i f i :lis own cause and in t roduced
wickedness i n h.wnnn a c t i o n s . S u c c i n t l y Rousseau
puts - thc whole p i c t u r e tlius;
If we follow t h e progress o f i n e q u a l i t y wc s h a l l set. that; t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f 1 3 ~ 9 and r i g h t s of xroperty was i t s Sirst term, t h e i n s t i t x L i o n of ma.gistra.cy t h e second, m d t h e convers ion of l i g i t i m a t e i n t o a r b i t r a r y ;r;ower t h e t ;h i rd and I.ast9 s o t h a t t he cond i t i on of t h e r i c h add poor was a.uthorized by t h e f i r B t w r i o d tha . t of t he :;~owerful and t h e weak by t h e second =d only by the tliircl th2.t o f master and s l w e which i s the I n s t degree o f i nequa l i t y .32
What was uppermost i n the mint!, - of Rousseau was
the kind of government t h a t obtained i n the mench
Society where power and au thor i ty depended on S s o c i a l
preskige r ichness . The d i f f e r e n t forms of govern-
menti!.. he says itowe t h e i r o r ig in t o the d i f f e r i n g
degrees of inequa l i ty which ex i s t ed between irdlividuala
a t the t i n e of t h e i r ins t i tu t ion; i33 .
If there hap3ened t o be any one Inan among them pre-eminent i n power, v i r t u e p r i che s o r personal inf luence . . . the S t a t e assumed t h e form of Monarchy. Bf several nea r ly equal i n point o f eminence, s t o o d above the r e s t . . . it i s 7ristocra.cy . . . alnong 3, people who had deviated l e s s from a S t a t e o f na.ture and between whose t a l e n t s the re was l e s s d ispropor t ion the supreme was xetained i n common a democraxy is formed-. 34
There i s no doubt t h ~ t o r o ~ e r t y c r e a t s imequality. . -
Now the important -question i s t h i s , how 1et~;itiimate
o r j u s t i f i e d i s any government founded on i neqca l i t y
r e s u l t i n g from property ? Kow 1.egit;i.ma.te w i l l bc
the p w e r and au thor i ty based on inequa l t iy of pro-
perty. I n o ther words, what i s the fovnda,tion f o r
r i g h t s and obl iga t ions i n a s ta . te founded on property,
inf luence , and inequa l t iy ? Does property give m y
bas i s f o r a r lpol i t ica l r i gh t ( ' ? Wne man could aggran-
d jze himself only a t the exlense of another , a t the
same time the have no t s who had been too weak or too
indolent o t mz're mch acquisi- t ion . . . were obliged to
r ece ive t h e i r subs i s t ence r:: s t e a l iit from t h e r i c h
and t h i s soom bred , according -to t h e i r d i f f e r m t chara-
c t e r s dominion and s la -very , o r v io l ence and rapjilei:. 'j5
A s t h e most powerfi~l o r most i r~ iserab le considered
t h e i r might o r misery as a r i g h t t o t h e possession of
o t h e B p equiva1en.t i n t h e i r opinions t o - that cf p ~ o p e r t y
the d e s t r u c t i o n of equalkty was a t tended by t h e most
t e r r i b l e d i so rde r s . I n Rousseauis opinion any such
gover-mienJ; i s not founded on t h e o b l i g a t i o n o f n a t u r e
which emanates f ru r r l pasoion, 11 emanated f rom human
vice-reason and 1isupressed thc c r i e s o f naturdl pass ion
and s t i l l f e c b l e voice o f j u s t i c u , and f i l l e d men
with arvarice ambition and vicelr .36
Eow t h e remedy of t h i s l;i?d. oP siC,xation 5 s t o
he founded on a new ground of' ob l iga t ion . By preoje-
c t i n g property and r e l a t i n g i t w~.-r;h i n e q p a l i t y ,
Rousseau proved t h a t t h e ground o f r ~ o l i t i c a l r i g h t
could not be founded t h e r e , P'ian i s thus a l i e n a t e d be-
cause, proper ty and . inequal i ty der ived fro171 At, made
l l i m immorally dependent on anothea. H i s na-hmal f r e e -
dom is t h e r e f o r e denied him. This na.t;ural f redorn * which de r ives f r o i ~ i na.trrral law enabled man t o s e e his
e q u a l i t y with o t h e r s . Kousseau maintains t h a t i n
s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s , the wor$t t h z t ca.n h a ~ p e n t o a man i s
t o depend on another e spec ia l ly when such dependence
i s occassioned by inequa l i ty of property.
This kind of government which i s found operat ing
i n the s t a t e o f ;:ocie-Ly i s founded on the p r i x i p l e
of ismigh-tii. This i s the long develoument of the
i dea of a l i ena t i on a s found i n Rousseau. It k s a
denia.1 of freedom and inde pendence with which man
w a s nborn and Rousseau t raced the s t e p to the deve-
lopment 01 the srts and Sciences. Property crea.ted
inequalti.; and dependence znrl b u i l t u p a societty based
not on the law of nature and i t s ob l iga t ion but on
t h e la,w of '!might". There i s no doubt t ha t th.1.s
kind of soc ie ty i s not a j u s t one f o r the ind iv idua l
to l i v e i n because he is no langer f ree . I n -wha.t
way i s man then to be saved? I-t i s by bui ld ing
t he foundation of the soc ie ty on a i . new
bas i s . This ba s i s w i l l r e s t o r e -to man h i s s tatusquo
before socie ty . With t h i s t a sk of r e s t o r a t i o n , we
axe t o be concerned with, i n the next cha,ptera
; ; I n t e r n a . t i o n a l Encyclo.pedia, of Socia.3. S c i e n c e s ; : ed. by D a v i d . I,. Sills, V o l s 13 8: 14: I4kh c d i ti 011 ( Lond oil ) .
Sa-tire . . - . * a > . and . . Narxism, , + - ( ~ u s s c x , Har- ve~:-ter press, T(7'98 ) .13'7.
ibid
Ibid . . . --
14. R o u s s e a u ,
I?.
16. R o u s s e a u ,
17. I,
18.
P3.
a l i l o s , o of Right , t r am by . - - * > . . _ . _ = - . * , I . m o x ( T,ondon: O x f o r d
Rousseau ,
A H i s t o r y o f ~ i l o s o p h y , Vo l . v i , - - = - . - * ---. = a*-----
C ~ a r f ~ a n d , Nevm1a.n Fress , I9 64 ) P.98. The Socic; , i C o n t r a c t t r a m s by C.D. ,, ,,=a , ,, ,, ,. ,,,, I ,,2. C o l e (N.Y,, Deut : S o n s , 1954) P.42.
Rousseau , J . J , =.-. Emilj- . ed -- IJ-? -2 --- k t e r , ---- - i- D J imack ondo don, ~ e u t , - ' 1 ! 9 % 8 ) 7,57*
TEE: IVOTPON OF IOLITHCLlL RTI1'1RP2ITION . . *..>.=--*.r>.-.---.= ..-..-.::- -?-z.c:.7-=. ----.s&=---'"-~~--.- --*:c.~-:vm:-:*-..>-.~:..-..
Ir1 t h i s cha.pter:. , we t r y t o e x p 1 i c a . t ~ ano the r c ru -
c i a l dimension which RousseauD s phil.osophy e x h i b i t s .
This may we l l be c a l l e d ':the end perspec t ive of
R O U G B C ~ a phi loso@hy:~, This i s ,011.i t i c a l a.:f.Cirrnr?.tion.
I t i s thc view o f t he n o l i t i c a l s t a t e ifas t h e
5-nstrumcn-t; o f socia,l. reconstrucL.i:?n and th:, p o l i t i c a l -
c~rnliiu~li 'ty ns thc ~ubearer o -i' majmrsis b e s t hope;:. 1 Gencrally
speaking wha.-t does t h e i d e a of' a f f i r m a t i o n convey ? I t
donnotes, r ed i scove ry , r e c o n s t m c Lion, r e -es ta ,bl is lment
which p r i o r l y denoted a s t a t e of alienation a d throwiness
a s we endeavoured t o expound i n t he last chapte r . Now
can we d f f i l i a t e t h i s b a s i c i d e a t o Roussea8uPs p o l i t i c a l
philosophy ? Obviously, tFRousseau came a s a mora.1 forcd.2
Without i nvo lv ing unnecessary r e p e t i t i o n s , w e r e f e r
t o t h e d i s t i n c t f o n s made by Rousseau between %e Statt. :
of s o c i e t y and t h a t of p o l i t i c a l s t a t e , and t h e con t r a -
d i s t i n c t i o n s of s o c i a l i n t e r - r s l a t i o n s i n t h e two.
IfLike .Fl r i . to , Rousseau was obsessed by int imatbons of
co r rup t ions , d i s o r g a n i z a t i o n , even of break down i n
s o c i e t y around him, and l i k e Pla to t oo , Rousseau sa.w
p o l i t i c a l community . . . a s the only poss ib l e haven
torments of s o c i e t y ( ' . ?
c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i l , i n t h e Rrencli s o c i e t y of h i s d a , ~ ~ .
Ilc g ivcs a p i c t u r e of a c u l - t u r a l l y complicated and aby-
si.rnally h i , i L ~ o u s , c x p l o i t s t i v e 2nd t x r an i cz l . s o c i a l
rela-tiGyishbp were forced a,nd coercive. The o t h c r i n e -
v i t a . b l c accompa.nimen-t;s of -'i'.l.ir; S ta.t;e o f t he s o c i e t y
we.rc ir:!c.qu.ali t y and the rei,rl;'l? o f :Fmight a s r i g h t ' 1 . I n f ac t wha.t would p m a as a, t r u e jud@c?ment o f t h i s
S t a t e o f the s o c i e t y is t h r iiunjras-t; society . 113 we s h z l l see l a . t e r , i n our driscusr;ioncH
Rousseau s concept of iiGenera.1. \;Jill", t he oniy e x i s t i n g
me-ta.physica.lly r e a l e n t i t y i s tihe individual . . . In a.
p e c u l i a r s e n s e , h i s p o l i t i c a . 1 philosophy took o:ff
from c;.n i n d i v i d u a l i s t , s t and -po in t . Even i n t h c
Stclte ol' n a t u r e , t h i s i n d i v i d u a l i s t oos ture i s aplv;l-
r e n t . plan was pure ly i n d e pentlent, de nending only on
t h e na.iura.1 law. I n t h e po1il;ica.l S ta- te t o o , Rousseau
abhores anykind of socia .1 attachmen-t . The i nd iv idua , l
should he independent of 8.11 r e s t r i c t i o i i s , be .' i t
c u l t u r a l o r r e l i g o u s b u t : , l ~ m l d only depend on the S t a t e b
I t means t h s t , l i k e Pis-to, Rousseau makes h i s
primary r:i.i1:1 t h e ema,ncipa.tion o f -(;he i n d i v i d i m l from
t h e c o r r u p t i o n , conf l ic- i ; s and unce r - t a . i n t i e s o f S o c i e t y
and s e e s t h e poli t - ica.1 comr!luni.ty a s t h e s u r e s t means of
e f f e c t i n g t h i s l i b e r a t i o n , lioussea,ul s g r e a t e s t enemi-ty
a g a i n s t soc ie - ty , i s a g a i n s t t hose t i e s whicn make
i n d i v i d u : ~ l s dc ,?enden-t upon one ano the r . I t w a s t h e r e -
f o r e -the i~! .divid.ual freedom t h a t i s most endear ing t o
Roussca .~ . I n tlr!is connec t ion , Nisbc t say:; i t i s " f r e e -
dom from s o c i e t y [ ! ,4
.l"cli:< dfreedom .would seek t o l i b e r a t e ind3vicluals
fr.01~~ -thd t o i l s and t r a p s 01 soci~2-ty and t o provide a
c o n d i t i o n of equa.1il;y approxima.ting a,:: a e a s l y a s
pos s ib l c he S t a t e o f n a t u r e . 'I!his freccloix wil.1 make
each i n d i v i d u a l independent of each o t h e r . The f i r s t
b a s i s o f e q u a l i t y t h e r e f o r e freedom Tor a l l . h i s
Each c i t i z e n would t hen be c o n p l e t e i y independent of a l l h i s f e l l o w mar, and a b s o l u t e l y dependent upon t h e S t i i t e , which opera t i o n i s a1wa.y~ brought by t he same means, f o r i t i s only through t h e S ta t -c t h a t l i b e r t y of i. ts members can be secured.?
The S t a t e t h e n as th.c agency of ema.ncip:l.tiol.;, c r e a t a s
a, cornpara.tivc.ly equa.1 i nde pendence o f a l l on k t . :dhat
would - the re fore p r e v a i l i n -t;hc p o l i t i c a l S t a t e i s inde-
pepdencc - dcpendenco t h a t would s e r v e as a founda t ion
f o r the maximization of tha-t, much va lued f rccdon. The
S t a t ? i s t;l~c: means by which -:he i n d i v i d u a l can be f r e e d
from t h c r c s t r i c Live tyra .nuies which cornpose s o c i e t y .
-44 - By en-tering i n t o the p r e S t a t e , y;marll s a .c t ions r e c e i v e
the moral c h a r a c t e r wh.ich was wanting -to them beforev6
and ;;from a sku pi2 and l i m f t ed animal , he now f o r t he
f i rs -L -i;ri:r~le becomes . . . a N%il; : .7
Ono can d i s c e r n from t h i s s ta tement t h e combination
of s o c i a l ni..hilisrn and p o l i t i c a l a f f i r m a t i o n be
foinnti i.7, Rousseax s po l i t i ca .1 ph i loso i~hy . Summarily
then , ' ~ne i d e a of a.ff irma,t ion a s i s found i n Rousseau,
imp l i e s a. r ed i scovery !;hat w i l l r e s t o r e -the e s s e n t i a l
and in::. l l ienablc q u a l i t y oi' rna.rl h i~Lher to wanting i n t h e
French sociei;y. The whole idea. o f -this. rcQolves around
the no-tion o;f i n d i v i d u a l l i b e r - t y which Rousseau speaks
of a s 2, sacred proper ty . I t i s the c o ~ s t i t u t i v e e l e -
ment of ma.nls d i g n i t y and the r e g a i n i n g of h i s master-
s h i p of h imse l f . For Rousseau t h i s freedom cxi,c:ists
of -the i d d i v i d u a l dependence on. t he $ta- te . This i s
what t1i.e whole of t h e Socia.1 Cont rac t i s devotrecl t o -- -..-..- *.-.*. - -.:- --... .= -:=>
accomplish.
,T~.. ., a.im of t h i s sec-Lion i s t o c le l inea te t h e gu id ing
19rincip:ic:s of t h e f i r s t s o c i e t i e s . By t h e f i m t
s o c i e t i o s w e mean t h e f m i ~ l y z.n6 any o t h e r kind of
a s s o c i ~ t i o n t h a t ex i s t ed be fo re t h e forma.tion ' o f t h e
poli-tic;:.l S t x t e . This w i l l enable us t o look forward
f o r a, new socia .1 o rde r from t h e :po l i t i c .a l S t a t e . This
p r i n c i p l e i s seen opera . t ive i n th.e fa.mily and t h e
Stat':; o f s o c i e t y . I t i s 1;h: primary a.nd i n s t i t u t i o n -
a . l i z n t i o n of t he V i g h t of $he s t r a n g e s t ; ' . Some phi lo -
sophers have argued f o r i t a s a, l e g i t i m a t e b a i i s f o r
t he poi.i '~ica.1 S t a t e . The bas i c unde r ly ing assumption
i s t h a t men a r e ' h o t c r ea t ed equal and -Lha.t s onie
a r c bor.11 L O command and some -Lo obey. A r i s t o - t l c ,
Gro-tius and t h e o r i s t s of t h e divine sight:; 01 . k i n g
a r e o f t h i s view. A r i s t o t l e f o r i n s t anue mainta.ine t
t h a t l1sorne men a r e born f o r s l a v e r y and o t h e r s f o r
d o r n i n i ~ r ~ ; ; . 8 He t h e r e f o r e endea.voured t o f u r t h e r t h e
argumen-t i n suppor t o f t h e r i g h t of of s l a v e r y .
I?olri::seau c i i t i c i s e s t h e p r i n c i ?le a s being based
on iafac-i; and no-t r i g h t , n u l l and void and suyerf lous: ' .9
He sees -the p r i n c i p l e as 1 :essen t ia l ly f a l s e 2iIea.s
about the f~ndamenta .1 l a w s of soc ie ty i ; , IO I n t he
admin i s t r a t i on of t he family , t h e f a t h e r being physi-
c a l l y s t r o n g e r thah the r e s t has h i s a u t h o r i t y f i xed
by; n a t u r e . The b a s i s of du ty a.nd r igh . t s fol low from
a ,u thor i ty der ived from na , tu re , But i n t h e S t a t e
i t . . . a.11 members being D2.-turaJ2.y equa.1, t h e pol . i t ica.1
a u t h o r i t y , . . i.s founded only oil. convention . . . and
t h e r u l e r i s ob l iged t o t h e people only by what they
thernsc?lves promised t o do , a.nd the people h m e t h e r e -
f o r e a r i g h t t o r e q u i r e of thcm:i.II
Thc: sirnplt? impl ica . t ion i s t h a t i n t h e former kind
of a.drninistra.tion., kh.2 s u b j e c t s have no r i g h t s t o
r e q u i r e of t h e s u p e r i o r bxt have a.11 compell ing d u t i e s
towa.rt2s h ~ i i x . Tl'le d i f f e r e n c e i s t h e r e f o r e then. c l e a r .
The ?.d; l! : i~iis . t ra. t ion of t'he f i r s t s o c i e t i e s and t h e
righJcs oi' s l a v e r y , emanating from the r i g h t s of :
the- ; s t r o n g e s t ake b~ . ; i cd on f o r c e , whhch i s
n o t i n t he p o l i t i c a l s t a t e , founded on the p r i n c i p l e
of h1lrna.n ac-i freedom.
::li'orcc: says Rousseag ( i s a phys ica l power a.nd
I f a i l t o sec? what moral e f f e c t i-t; can h a v e , ~ ; . t o y i e l d
t o f o r c e i s a c t of n e c e s s i t y , n o t of w i l l iL12 Now
Tta what sense ca.n obedience -to $hysica,l f o r c e be
j u s t i f i e d ? Suppose f o r c e i t s e l f con fe r s r i g h t on t h e
s u b j e c t , Rousseau says -the ( s o l e r e s u l t i s a, mass of
inexplic. i .bie nonesense . . . f o r i f f o r c e g ives r i g h t ,
t he e f f e c t changes wi th t l ~ cause , every fo rce t h a t
i s grea:te:r thzn the! f i r s t s;xcct.ecis t o i t s r i g h t . A s
saon ::a i-L i s poss ib l e t o disobey wi th impuni$y, d i s -
obed.iu.rzcc: i s legl_tirna.te, t h e s t r o n g e s t be ing always
i.n the r i g h t , th.e only thin:; - that ma.MLers i s &o a c t
become the s l r o n g e s t , ; . l 3
Mhat kind of r i g h t per i shes when f o r c e f a i l s ?
I f I must obey by fo rce ( . t he re i s no need t o mbey be-
cause we ought, a.nd i f we a r e n o t found -to obey, we
a r e under no obl iga . t io r l~~ . I4- It would be l i k e a
b r i g ~ n d s u ~ p r i s i n g some one. One must sur render on
compulsion. Forcc t h e r e f o r e does n o t g ive r i g h t and
one i s only o'bliged t o obey- l e g i t i m a t e powers.
physical fo rce through h i s j u s t i f i c a t i o n of t h e r i g h t
of sla.very- a t war, According -to Grot ius ;
The v i c t o r ha.ving the r i g h t of k i l l i n g the vanguished, t h e la.-tt;er can buy back
I_ [is li:f:c. a,% the p r i ce of h i s l i b e r t y , and t h i s convention ir: !;he !xom - legi- t imate b,eca.uo<: i t i s t o t h e advan- -t age o :C bo -th pc:i.r: - i : 1 c s .I5
R.oilsseax r e p l i e s t h a t t h e r i & - t of conquest has no
foundat ion o t h e r than thc r i g h t of t h e s t r o n g e s t . Evcn
should such a, r i g h t bc a.ssumed, a s l m e made i n wa.r
i s under no o b l i g a t i o n t o h i s master except t o obey
him a s far as he i s compclled t o do so.
l.?rom whatever a speu t , t he r i g h t o f s l ave ry i s
n u l l and vo id , Ill egitirr1a.t~ m d sbsurG and meaningless.
Moreover i t i s based on a. s e r i o u s misconceptiQn of
th; na tu re of war. Va.r i s a, s i t;ua.tion tha.t e x i s t s
bettwcen two n a t i o n s and n o t between two i n d i v i d u a l s .
Rousseax seeks i n the , S o c i a l . s .% -. ." . -. C0ntra.c-t, .%- -..>-.=-.- a a new
b a s i s oi' r i g h t s t h a t corn$rises i n d i v i d u a l l i b e r t y .
I n f::.cL when i n -the opening chap tc r of t h e .~.-a-.---a S o c i a l
C o n t r x t , he says [im;in i , ~ born f r e e and everywhere --s=m2.:>-.= -.., - ,
i n chains . . . ;PC. Rousscau 8.3 it were draws a t t e n t i o n
t o thc ugly c0nd.i-tion of S t a t e of s o c i e t y which con-
s is ten- l ; ly denies m,.~,n h i s e s s e n t i a l heine. Rousseau
woul) d m;:~ir;ta.in l i k e the exis-ient;:ialists tha-t; m3.n i s
co~~dernnccl t o be f r e e , Ilc: -l-ho-rc::i'orc b o t h emphasizes
th(; ?mi quenus n o .i" -i;4ic: humm person a.nd -the freedom
through which i t is manires t ed ,
For !::.ouasea,u 2.r; f o r the c x i s tent ia1i .s ts , freedom
o f -the i .ndividua1 i s the ' b r t k i s To-rr azy a u t h e n t i c exis-
tence. To renounce l i b c r t y i s t o renounce being a,
man f l t o sur render t h e r i g h t s of 1iuri;a.ni-t;y and even i t s
d u t i e s ;i .I7 Such a, riino.rnncia.tion i s incorrip~'cib1e
wi th human nature, t:, rcmove freedom i s t o reril#ove
a l l norra,lity from ma,ngs a c t s . Any kind of r u l e which
ma.n must obey must accord hiim freedom.
The b a s i s of r i g h t i s n o t t h e r e f o r e i n ~frnightif,
To r e s t o r e -the mom1 wholeness of man, we sha l l s e e g
f o r a, new b a s i s of a u t h e n t i c ex i s t ence that w i l l accord
m m .Lrecdom. We r e j e c t anykin(: of s o c i e t y whcre rc-
l a t i o n s h i p i:; detcrmincd Ijy i;mightl: i n favour o C t h e
-49 - one where rigl.1-t; de termincs r e l a t i o n s h i p . Rousfseau
concludes t h a t [lc onvention Zorriis t he b a s i s of , a l l
l e g i t i m a t e govcrnmentsii. 18 I-L i s only by means of
convc.ntion tha-i; we can i;iriquire i n the c i v i l o rder . . . a s u r e and i e g i timartic po1s.tica.l r u l e of a.dininis t r a -
i n . 9 Wen from h i s a.ccou:n-i-; oi' T:.mla.n n a t u r e , i t
imp l i e s t h a t any-Lliing i n f o r r ~ of r u l e over man must be
on h i s co:mcnt. Any legi-tima.te po1itic:a.l a s s o c i a t i o n
111us-t -!;hcrefore ke by S o c i a l con-t:cr,l.c.t. Only -by t h i s
can we a.13wi-ve XI; : f . , , :j, , soc i a l o:il'dcr w:i.tl? a. sacred
r i g h t which i s the b a s i s o f a l l i- ights G. 2 0 !ilk riex-L
s t c p i s t o - t r e a t the b i r t h of oo l i t i ca .1 s ta- te! a. s
oocia.1 c o n t r a c t .
THE S O C I A L CONTRACT z . - - -- r = = ---*
I le 11 we seen i n th5> pr tcecd ing s e c t i o n , t h a t i n
whatcver terms onc may a t tempt t o jus t i f g a r b i t r a r y
r u l e s Cl-c! t a s k i s v a i n , f o r such dominion cart h ave
no u l i i ~ ~ l L C basis bu t phys i ca l rower a s phys ica l
Porcc conPcrs no r i g h t . 'le h w e seen equa l ly e l s e -
where t ha t i t i s a naturc71 assurn?tion according t o
I P ~ u ~ s z m lha t we must rccognisc the n a t u r a l e q u a l i i y
and r lgh l , t o frecdoi~i of c v t r y member o i t h e s o c i e t y .
idow lbmaul i s born f r e e bu t ev~rywherc i n chaius ' i . 2 1
The onerous 3ob i s t o u n c h a ~ n rmn and a l low hi;,^ r e g a i n
h i s natura .1 l i b e r t y and any kind of s o c i e t y hhat
effec- ts t h i s i s the obly leg i t ima- te s o c i e t y . X t
a lone c a n l a y c la im t o l e g i t i m a t e obedience.
This soci;..l o rder i s n o t foirnded by na tu re bu t by
convention.
I n tllc openiil-T chap te r s of -thc S o c i s l Con t r a c t , =.--=- * '.-a* * =a-
Rousseau d e c l a r e s , "1 mean to i n q u i r e i f , i n the
soc i : l i o rder therti can be ahy s u r e nnfi l e g i t i m a t e r u l e
of admixis%ra t ion , men bcing '~aken a s they aCe and
law as they might be !. 2 2 Tho 3nly means t o such a.
l eg i t i rn? t c r u l e i s , :qccording t o Rousaeau, by S o c i a l
faa t i s only poss ib l e
by con - t r ac t , ; : for soc ia l . o rde r i s a, sacred ri&t
which i s the b a s i s of a l l o t h e r r i g h t s . . . . This
r i g h t , . . must t h e r e f o r e be founded on convenfionl: .27
For Kousseau t h i s i s t h e only ground ( i . e convent ion)
f o r any : ; p o l 3 t i c a l r i g h t ; ; . t h e S o c i a l Con t r ac t . - he s-ta.i,es the i s s u e a p p o s i t e l y :
i'lie problem i s t o f i n d a form o f a s soc i a . t i on which w i l l defi-nd and p r o t e c t w i th t h e common fo rce t h e persons and. goods of e-ach, while u n i t i n g hirnself wi th a l l , ma.y s t i l l obey himself aloric and remain as f r e e as be fo re , t h i s i s t h e problem which t h e S o c i a l Cont rac t provides -the s o l u t i b n . 24
Rousseau gives u s t he i d e a of t h ~ S t a t e of n a b r e a s
as t h c s t a t e of a , b s o l u t e freedom. He wants t h e t h e
S o c i a l Colitrac-t t o j u s t i f y t h e i m p l a n h a t i o n o f -l;ha.t
same freedoiil i n t o t h e p o l i - t i c a l S t a t e . H e was c a r e -
f u l t o s h ow t h a t i t ; i s n o t a, s u b s t i t m t i o n o:f B
s l a v e r y f o r freedom. In. :Pact maD. a t t a i n s t h e h i g h e r
l e v e l 01 l l b e r l , y i n o r g ~ i n s e d r o c i e - t y t h a n i n a t a t e
of n a - L u n , 11 t h e n t h e S-La-Lc: comes i n t o e x i s t e n c e
as a r t ? s u l t of' s o c i a , l c o n t r a c t , which i t ~ e L f i s a
f r e e a c t , the problem of' tli? s o c i a l c o n l r a c t a u t o -
rc,;, t i c c ~ l l y me ta;lophirzcs i n t o t h e p o b l e m of freedom.
The p o i n t i s t o make rnm fret sixlce b e i n g r e s p o n s i b l e ,
freedom i s t h e only' ground Tor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y alid
Xach ot ur: yuts h i s pe r son and a l l h i s GowCrs iL: COyl i lOr : ~~~ : :1d(2 r the suprerfle d i r e c t i o n o f th _i:r,eral \):ill, 2nd i n o u r c o r p o r a i ; ~ c t u8: ,ci ~ y ~ we r e c e i v e each n~e~iitser a n i l l d i v i s i b l c p a r t o f t h e whole.25
This a c t o f a s soc ia . - t ion a c c o r d i n g t o Rousseau
,pbLic pe r son , the. r c p n b l i c o r o r body poli-rt ic
1 : . . . c: i l led t h e S t a t e when c o n s i d c r c d a s p a s s i v e , " c h e
b
s o v e r e i g n when c o n s i d e r e d as a c t i v e ... I t s members
a r e c o i l c c t i v e l y the , peon le , w h i l e , t a k e n i n d i v i d u a l l y
they a r e c a l l e d c i t i z e n s , as s h a r i n g i n t he sovere ign
power, and a s s u b j e c t s , as being under t h e l a w s of
'the S-ta-i;el:.%7 Rousseau speaks of t h e S-Late 53,s a
pe r son i f i ed e n t i t y wi th a ' d i l l , a moral being. To
t h i s i s s u c of S t a t e a,:; having ' a Will, we sha.11 t r c a . t
i n due course. It s u f f i c e s h e r e ' t o a.nalgse t h e e x i s -
t e n t i a l strut t u r e of t h e new formed person..
Koilsseap sayst; ... aad each i n d i v i d u a l , i n
imking a con-bract; . . . i s bound. i n double capac i ty :
a s a, nielilljer o f t h e sovere ign , h t. i s bound t o t he
iyl.divid~m,ls; and a s a member of -Lho S - t ?~ te t o t h e Sove-
rc-ignii.25 The i n d i v i d u a l i n a po.i i t icn.1 S t a t e enjoys
two modes of cikistence. One mode i s s p e c i f i c i n
esserlcc, tile o the r u n i v e r s a l . lie Ll~erefore exiists as
n concre te un iversa , l , on undivided d u n l i t y , -the l a t t e r
being i;lw b a s i s f o r a t r u e i n d i v i d u a l i t y , A s soon
as t h i s rrrultidude i s s o uni-ted i l l t o one body "duty
and in%crt?s-t equa l ly ob l ige -the i-wo colz-tracting par-
t i e s ( individua.1 and sove re ign ) t o g ive t h e i r double
capac i ty . . . al l . t h e a.dvaiita,ges dependent upon t h a t
Now does t he mere a c t of c o n t r a c t , emphasizing b
mutual agrcenent between t h e con t r ac tine; p a r t i e s ,
which give:; b i r t h t o new moral e n t i t y guarantee
e f f ec t i v c l i b e r t y f o r t h p ind.ivfdilal? Rousseau
himself wars iLW8Te of th5s 2roblem and d e c l a r e s , : i th i s
a t f i r s t s i g h t i s no easy problem, f o r how can men
place -t;hemselvcs under an e x t e r n a l coercive a u t h o r i t y
witnou-l; sur render ing personal freedomif. 30 'The problem
i s not siiaply -to f ind a f o m of a s s o c i a t i o n which w i l l
p ro tec t the persons m d goods of each member, bu-t i n
nddi t ion t o protec t i n e -thc i l v c s rind p-ro:>erCies of the
i n d i v i i l u ~ l s should. a.11-OVJ ' ; e x h one u n i t i n @ him;; e l f t o
all. , obey:; neverJ;hlcss, only hirn:;i:lf and rcinairls a s
illany b e n e f i t s says Rousseau acurcs t o man by
e n t e r i n g i n t o pol i t ica .1 s o c i e t y though c o n t r c t .
'l'he passage from the s t 3 t e of na ture t o the c i v i l S t ~ l t c produces a very remar- kable change i n man, by s u b s t i t u t i n g j u s t i c e f o r i n s t i n c t s i n h i s conducts and g iv ing h i s a.c tioils the r raor~l i ty which they had formerly lacked. 32
What a man l o s e s by the s o c i a l contra.ci; i s h i s n a t u r a l
l i b e r t y and an unl imited right; t o everything which
he t r i e s to ge t and succecds i n gcJcting, what hhe
ga ins i s c i v i l l i b e r t y and p ropr i e to r sh ig of a l l hc!
possesses. Naturc~l. l i b e r t y i s l imi t ed by the physical
po.wer of -the ind iv idua l . The c i v i l l i b e r t y i s l i lni ted
by the general W i l l , which i s thc r e a l w i l l of each
member of t h e s o c i e t y . Merc ~ o s , e s s ion i s the e f f e c t
p r o p r i e t o r s h i p founded on p o s i t i v e
Cjvar and above a l l , we m i & - t a.dd t o wha.L rmi: acqui.rei i n t h e c i v i l S ta , t e moral liberty, w11ich a lone nmkes him t ruegy rrmster of h imse l f . 7 7
g r ~durlll-y disceru: a, new f:rond of o b l i g a t i o n e x i s t i n g
i n t h c p o l i - t i c a l S i t n t e r Nature c o n f ~ r s no ri@t be-
cause: n s , t u r z l L i b e ~ t y Ls l i m j tcd by phys i ca l i b r c e .
:;i;?,-i;c i n s o f a r as i t confc r s p o s i t i v e r i g h i ena-
enahli-,:; him 'LO e x e r c i s e freedom,
~ C C O I : I C S t h e source of jus-Lice and b a s i s o f r i $ h t .
Ano-ther s t e p towaads unninskiiig the problem of
individu.a. l l i b e r - t y 3,s cxgressed through t h e s o c i a i
contract ; i s by t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e o r g m i c S t a t e .
Roussen.1i. conceives t h e Stri.te as a. "moral being;; wi th
i t s QTitJn w i l l and l i f e , It:: f i r s t d u t y $0 i t s e l f i s
the p3se1:vation of i t s l i f 'e . J u s t as an orgaraism i s
compused of harmoaj.ous par;.s, s o i s t h e S t a t e . The
whole i s thus an intcgr.a.1 u n i t , informed by a comrno,n
l , i fe , possess ing a common in-beres t and a common w i l l
whose s o l e s u b j e c t i s t h e p re se rva t ion o f l i f e and we l l
being o f t he who:lc.
Tn'cernal cohesion and co-operat ion i s the w i l l . of
the who]-e o r the Gcnern.1 W i l l , whose o b j e c t is, the
prese 'rv3tion and we l l being of tlic: St;aVJce and t o t h i s
91c Sody p o l i t i c i~s -then rilso , a ;:ioral being which 1ia.s ,T v ~ i 3 . l :md. that; C-enera1 ;Jill, w h i c h -tends r.tj.v;::1,yl;; .kc, t he conser- v:3,tion and wel l i,,ilig of t h e whole m d cnch p x t and i s t he sollrce of t h e la.ws, i s f o r a l l the members of -tbc S t a t e , i n r e l a t i o n -to -l-hern and t c i t , -the r u l e of wha.-L i:: j u s t a.nd ,1mjus.t.35
of l .? .w, s o al-so --tho Ccne:ra,l. \.!ill. becornes , the source
af j u s t laws and measure of iimra-lity f o r a l l . '$'he
Gcncrzl. ! r J . i l l o r t h c w i l l c i' the: body p o l i t i c ought then
Onc ivoulcl automa t i c a l i y : ~ n t i c i p q . t e a dcspotism,
authorita.rinrzism o r imper ia l i : :~~: 0 1 the General W i l l
t o nm.ni$es:l; 2nd indecd -t;haiJ i s -the cnly l o g i c a l ou t -
come. Roussem c r a f t l y t i r e s t o avoid - th is by abso lu t e
i d e n t i I i c a t i o n oL' t h e General Will w i th the part icul-a.r
id i l l s 0.T tho i n d i v i d u a l s . ?l ie c o n t r ? c t i s made n o t
bctwscn a moss o.? i n d i v i d u a l s , oY one p a r t , add a,
mass o r group of men a s i n iiobbes, b u t by agrmmenc b
among a l l the nembers of t41e c omrmni-by t o s?j.bmd t them-
s e l v e s t o the community,
The a s s o c i a t e s , a.s i n d i v i d u a l s c.ontra.ct E t h them-
s e l v e s a s a body. Every body s o t o speak, c a h t r a c t s
wi th himself and f i n d s himself contrn,ct ir ig i n -kwo
cap2ci-Lies; 3s an i.ndividua.1 wi th thc publ ic a,nd a s a,
p a ~ t of the public w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s . So fa r $%hen,
from producr i~~g a re l ;~l . t ionsl l ip o f i n e q u a l i t y be tween the
r u l e r mil -the rul-ed, the s o c i a l c o n - t r x - t produces iden-
t i t y . "'4iti people place theniselves under the :;sovcreigntg
o f -the pe0:p-B.c) . . Sovereign.Ly and t h e peop1.c are one and
t h c :r:i::.?2e r All inorn'bers o x the co.mrnuni-Ly f i k d them-
elves j.n n per fec t s t a t e o f cquali'cy h o t h a:: v80ubjec ts
and as pzi ' s ic i pamt a i n -the sovc.rcit.:zt 3 ~ ; ; .36
7io t n l t!,liena'i;i.on t o t h e whole community rts n o t
sl.avery-, :;::tinct. each one i n ;;i-ving himself t o ~1.11 g ives
himself t o no onei:.37 A l l submi t t ing on e x a c t l y t h e
same terms, t h e r e i s no master, and the r i g h t which
eacli acqu i r e s over the being r e c i ~procz.1, everpme gains
t he equiva len t of what he has l o s t and more fo rce t o
.preserve wha:t he has i y , 38
The i n d i v i d u a l s being s u b j e c t t o t he s o ~ r e r e i g n auth-
o r i t y being noth ing ilioro than the General Will, we s h a l l
see t h a t cach man, '!obeying t h e sovere ign , obeys himself
and one i s f r e e r undcr t h e S o c i a l pac t .39 This kind
. of Soc ia l Con-tract- i s n o t the same a s i n Hob'bes where
sovere ign ty i s n o t i n d e n t i f i a b l e w i th the subgects . The
d i f f c r enc t : between Hobbes and Rousseau i n t l ieir r e ~ - -
pec t i vc terms o f s o c i a l conk rac t i s tl?a,t Rousscau
r e g a r d s as i n a l i e n a b l e t h e supreme power which FIobl3cs
rnalies Lhe people a l i e n a t e .
For l<obbes, t h c s o v e r c i z n i s i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e
govcrnincnt, Rouos cau r ccogn izc s only two a s p e c t s
i n t he body p o l i t i c nai:cly t h c sove re ign and &e e m . -
cu-Live?. To escape the :~bsa lu t i s~! : of Iiobbcs, he adap t s
,? s y s t e ~ ~ i n which the l e g i s l ~ t i v e power o r sove re ign
i s : i l w ~ r s sumcine and the saw. Thc cxecu i ive o r govern-
ment always secondary r o r d e r i v a t i v e . The g o v e r n ~ m n t
i:; Inere l y i-c: c a r r y o u t t he a x t s of t h c Wills of t h e
sovereign people, The govtrnrwnt e x l s t s ot , t l ~ sovc r -
e igns p lcasure and i s always r i ,voksblc.
R0UsSen.U a t t a c k s IIobbes :for pe rg ing t h e l e g i s l a t i v e
o r t h e sove re ign p w i th t h e execu t ive , w i t h whom t h e
peuple have ma.dc;. a c o n t r a c t and t o whom they kavc
aliena-Led t h e i r r i g h t s . Fob'besv g r e a t e s t mis take was
the exoncracion of the sove re ign from the c o n t r a c t by
which Me has c rea t ed a n a b s o l u t e and i r r e s p o n s i b l e
governincnt. Rousscau - t r i e s t o s o l v e t h e problem coqs - a
c i o u s l y , 33u-I; by s e n e r a t i n g t h e exccu t ive and t he
of ESobbc:s. liobl:c.sY vicw i s su?por tcd 1~y t h e view which
he si iarcs wi th Grotifus t h a t man caa a l i e n a t e DO-L merely
h i s OWL:; l i b e r t y bu-t a l s o tha& of h i s descendcants and
%hc?,i; : : :~x~cc;~.rcntly, -i;hi> poe2le as a, whole can do -the same.
I \ lELis , i s -1;hc po in t at which Roussea.-u a t t a c k s Ifo-bbes.
Hobbcs p 0 b 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 3 . s -t;112t o f u n i t y . Fle thereforre s t r o v e
Sovi:r::i::n-Ly belongs $0 t h e 9eopl.e and Roussea.11
considera it a s - tho whole o:P t!;;? poop1.e u n i t e d under
the conlpn,ct a,a l e g i a l a ' t i n g , as t h e source of 1a .w~ . I t
i s thc body-pol i t ic considered as an organism, is
di rec t - t l t o t hc w e l l f a r c of i t s mmhers.
proper ly speaking only tbc cond i t i on of c i v i l asso-
c i a t i o n . The people being s u b j e c t t o the laws ought b
t o be i hek r aut l lor i ty j r .$I I t i s i n t h i s corinccti-on
t h a t we r:::,n set. t he scnse when he says t h a t sovere ign ty
i s in :~ , l i cnab le , i n d i v i s i b l e and imviol ab l e . This i s
because Lhc S t a t e has a w i l l o f i t s own, and s o v e r e i g n t y
be ing i-cs n a n i f e s t a t i o n , c a n n o t be e i t h e c be t r a n s -
f e r 'bl i? . ThC w i l l docs n ~ t admit of re ,presen-tat ion.
This grca';cst good o i? a l l t o which thc General
e q u a l i t y . U U - t by g iv ing?& an organ ic , Stste, whcre
-the i n r i i v i d u a l i s t o t a l l y s ~ r a l l o w c d , can -this I. l i b e r t y
be acilicvcd 3 A s we s h a l l s e c in tknc t r e a t m c h t of
thc Gent r a l W i l l , Roussc nu r i ~ p a p l i n g w i t h ithis
problcm, introduce: ; a n c w ~rlcnning i n t o t h e concep t ion
& 1 i h i : r ty and frccdom.
by tlac concuyrance of two c a u s c s , one moral i , c t h e
Will. which determines t h c a c t , t h e o t h e r phys ica l i . c
the oower which execu l e s iJi;;. 4-3. H e cont inues *; the
body p o l i t i c has t he same niotiue powers, he re Loo
f o r c c and w i l l a r e d i s t i n g u i s h e d l i \ d i l l ~ under t h e
nnne o.i l c g i s l a c i v e . power and rIforce'F under -the exe-
c u t i v c power wi thout t h e i r c oncui-ranc e , no th ing
should bc doneU.44
C-overr?~ncli-t as t he exec.utive a , i s an in t e rmed ia t e
body SC-i: u p between the s u b j e c t s and t h e sovereign
t o socure t h e i r mutual correspondence, brcnargcd wi-th
t h e exccut.ion of t h e laws 2nd main tainanct; of l i b e r t y 2 4 5
To mf'orcc t he con ten t s of t h c Genc.rr.11 \&ill, Cmvcrn-
rnent comprises a l l t h e S ta , t e func t iona . r ies . The i n s t i -
tu."l;iux i s t h e r e f o r e n o t a, c o n t r a c t between t h e people
t h c r u l e r s .
For t h e government machinery t o b,e e f fec l t ivc ,
i t should enjoy smrne au-tononiy. ' [ In o rde r that the
govcrnrncn.t iTlay halve a, t r u e e x i s t e n c e , and. a r e a l l i f e
d i s t i ng~ . i sh i , ng i t f r o m the sovere- o r body o f t h c
Sta, te ... i t must have a par-Licu.1c1.r e r s o n X L i t y , a
s c n s i b i l i y common t o ~ t s members and a f o r c e and b
w i l l . o i i t s own m%king f o r i t s prcservation:l .46 4
f a t a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n i s apparen-i; he r€ . I f t h e govern-
ment, existing n o t nn ground?; of any c o n t r a c t , i s
allowed t o have a p a r t i c u l a r w i l l a,nd f o r c c o f i t s
own, -t'n~:r.c: i s a tc.ndenc.g t o despot ism and t he r u l e o f
a p a r t i c u l a r w i l l of a. group over t h e General ' ! W i l l .
1r.l C ~ ~ C C - L , $l'i~' onin ipo- ten t and i r l f a l l i b i l i t y
a . t t r i b u t c d t o t he General Will may become the escc;ilce
o f %he p~ inc \ - . . Ai~usc. o f power an2 govt-rnmcn-t may be-
come pos s ib l e . Thc govt,rnment may u s e a l l -the power a%
A.:;ain t h e sove re ign Imving no 2ower t o e f S e c t t h e
General w i 3 . 1 becomes gowcrless , The ' General Will
i s nij t found by mn,jori-ty v-otos. l 'h is means t h a t t h e
govcrnmell-L ha,.; t h e r i g h t t o iic-tornline and en fo rce
whatever i t deems o-C i n t e c c s - t t o t h e pub l ic . 'The
di f fcrontfe between I-1obbesea.n abso lu t i sm and t h a t of'
Rousscau i s t h a t whi le HAL jes riiakcs h i s own e p l i c i t ,
Rousscaxq s abso lu t i sm i s i m p l i c i t . IIe j u s t i f i e s h i s
absoL.uJ~isrii i n t e r m s of fi-eeaom.. T3ut we should, b e a r
i n i~i ind -1;l:~:-:.-': f r e ed om i s used by Rousseau o u t s i d e i t s
t r ad i t i on : a l con t ex t . His ideal . 07 l i b e r t y i s . ind-e - pczldence f o r thc) i -nd iv idua l , but indcpendcnce, i t i s
t o bc observed, n o t from t h e s t $ t c b u t from f e l l o w
rnemb.ers o f s o c i e t y .
R.ouss eau t h i n k s %hat s o v c r e i p t y i s un;iv&rna,l i n
i t s obj 2c t wliilke governmani; d e a l s with p3.r-tich l a r b
apJ)lic;:-Lic.,n of tho laws, This shows t h a t t ? ? ~ conce-
p t i o n s o r -1;J.l.z term d . i f f e r widelv in jurisprAciencc and
i n polri t t c a l philoso-(ihy , I n juris prudcnct. wlikch d e r i v e s
f'r(.)rrl Ai.;l.stins d e f i n i t i o n , So-v,.:retgnty r e f e r s t o d e t e r -
:rlina-t e hw11.cl.n s u p e r i o r . In p o l i t i c a l phflosc~phy a i d am used by Rousseau,
i t i s a s i s u l i ; :)r out come of a c o n t r a c t b e t w e n
peopl i . I t ; i s t h a t body i n ihe S t a . t c i n which yjli-
t i c a l power ough-L t o r e s i d e . 'l'he s o c i a l c ~ ~ l x - t r a c t
ha s -tkicrrefore g iven us a.~: orga.nic clef i n i -Lion oa?
the S t a t c , where t i l e i n d i v i d u a l i s - to t a . l l y swallowiid
u p , Thc i n d i v i d u a l i s only r,;gr!.rded i n h i s re3a t io r i -
s h i p to t h e S t a . t e and n o t as .Y: i nde j1~7nden.t meta-
pliysS.ca.1. r : . ~ a l i t y . One wondms under t h i s a-rrangement
comriiuni-i;y. The same centra!_iz:i,-Lion o f c o n t r o l which
THE GEBLRliL i I L L .-_. -= -I_- - s I . .-- % ? - ,
iIcrc we a r r i v e a t t h e cu lmina t i on of our s e a r c h
f o r afyirma Lion, wl~icl i i s cquo l l y a qucs i f o r t h e
rcstaten~hn-i ; o f i n d i v i d u a l l i b e r t y throu: h the agency
o f the: StaLc. The * S o c i a l Goni,ra$t;: g?ve b i r t h t o a
moral be ing - thc S t a t c w i th a g e n c r a l w i l l . Roussoau
- t e l l s u s t h a t t h i s Ccncrgl I J i l l [ ? i s tlic f i r s l and
most IundnmenLal r u l c o i" l c g i 4 j r;a c 0 2 pop7nla.1~ gov t rn -
n t 4 It i:; t h e s tcnd,Ji.(l 1)y which any goverrvnc>nt
i:; .rtIjudt,:d good o r bad and -';llai; too by 11hiCh i n d i v i -
d u a l s a r c judged mor:il o-I- bad, vrir i~uous or. v i c i o u s .
V i r t u e i s no-ttzing )io-rc t h a n -illis con Tormi iy o r t h e
par L i c u l n Wills wi th th r Gencrnl V i l l i .47
'i 'his General Will i s too i;hc sou rce o f laws,
j u s t i c c :~nd l i bc l r t y . I t i s t o law a lone 'chat 1neP1
owe j u s t i c e and l ibcr tyb\ .48 T h i s Gcncral i l r i l l i s t h c
Wi l l of tllc S t a t e cons idorcd as a person and just
a s t h e i n d i v i d u a l i l J i l l nr tu r -1 l1y t ends t o i t s a b j e c t
as good, s o a l s ~ L ~ C General I d i l l t e nds T,O t h c coniinorl
good. Tn t&is connec t ion i t i s s a i d t o be most
g q u i t r b 1 c: and infa l l i 'u ike .
i>ui, ivllat s ~ x c i f i c n l l y i s t l ~ c n a t u r e o r -thi,c.
General \rill Many s e v e r a l a u t h o r s have o t k e s tcd
&a t o L d i f l i c u l by i n unders tanding precisely w k t Rousseau
means by %he G c n ~ r a l \,Jill.. 'Cl~is, d i f f i c u l t y Roche says
;:-t;hc s t u d e n t MI US^ be l e f t 7 t o worry f o r hinlself ' f .49
One t!-~.i..ng i;Ls t h a t t he c o n c c ~ t i t s e l f i s s u s c e p t i b l e
of devclopmenl i n a n y ways. Rousseau a t l e a t g ives
s - k r i c t l y a s i t i s r e l e v a n t t o -the ~ r o b l c m of our d i s -
cuss ion n:d.rc1i+ly t h e connec -tion of %111: Gencra,l W i l l
w i th LJ:, rea,~!izat;ion o f i n d i v i d u a l ii bey-by.
Rouaseau dist i :nguisheil be-kwocr!. t h e ;tG.enc.ral W i l l ; :
and ;[-the w i l l ciof a.1l.r. :;T1;;@ee is ~ ) f t ~ n a gywd"t dea.1
02 difi 't:rence between thc wil l . of 3.11 and thc C e n e r a l
Will.. q'he l a t t e r c o n s i d w s ollly t h o clomr!ion i n t c r e s t , while t h . ~ foriner t akes privn.Le i n t e r e s t i n t o account
and i s more tham a sum o f p a r t i c u l a r Willsrr.50 The
Genera.% W i l l i s gene ra l i n the sense tha:i; i t i s t h e
wi l l . of a u n i v e r s a l s u b j e c t - the sovereign people.
The emphasis i s on -the un iversa . l i - ty of o b j e c t mh i n t h e
sense :>I tending t o t h e common good and t h e ua ive r -
s a l i t y in r e l a t i o n t o i t s subhjict. !14he Will. of t h e
w v c r e i g n ~ o p l e , of t he moral being wh.ich i s brought
i n t o e x i s ten.ce by the s o c i a l co!?trs.ct.
r T ? h i w . - a.s.pect of Rousseau u . n d e r s c ~ r e s the germ of
of i;hc organic S-LC) td l,:tm devclopcd by Hegel. Rousscnn
speaks oC thc S t a t e as a, porson wi th i t s own 1 - e g i s l a t i n g
w i l l whicli a t it:; b i r t h r e p l a c c s t h e i n d i v i d u a l .
-i;h(: individual- p r i o r -Qo
individinal i n t o e x i s i,cncc . ? i ~ i s ncbr i n d i v i d u a l pcr-
The body p o l i t i c i s a l s o a nloral being posses::cd. o f a W . i . 1 1 3,n.d t h i s gene ra l i , ~ d i l l , wllich tends n.1~;-!,ys -to 'thc prc - s e r v a t i ~ l ! . and. wcil.fa.re of thc whole . . . and i s thc a x r - a e of 1a.w cons ti - -Lute i ' o r a l l tlzi, I ^ ( I ~ ~ c I I ( : T s of the S t a h , i n t h e i r re:La-cibn t o fin2 another and t o i t i;hc r u l c 01.' w1ia.t i s j u s t and un jus t .52
p rac t iuo 1% i s dif.;:'j.cul.t to know h o w - one c a n be
c d r i a i n oi' a c t i n g j u s t l y . Vir tuc; h~ t e l l s us i f i s
-b6-
noth ing more than t h i s conl'ormiJcy of t h e p a ~ t i c u 1 c ; r
Wills tii t h t h e Genoral Will :'. 54
Wh,?.-t i s obvious is --tha,-t Rous:;eau extend.s tk~
concep-l; of the n a t u r a l goodlleris of man t o -the anew
moral. hcring. 'Phe i n d i v i d u a l impcll.ed by s e l f - l o v c ,
s c ~ . k s i-:.:i,: own { y o d . 'ishe W i l I L . i s +;he fa.cul-ty by whi.ch
e j.X!.i?F.;7iic obji:c-ts Of our i l c s i r e cnd f o r t h e Epicurin,ns
i t co-risis-is of t h e 1h .w of i n d r a l i t y .
12 ,J < ? - z-> -, A I. , ; C , ~ ~ , L univcr:-:aliz(.;s it and mn.kc.s i t t h e
ground DL" mora l i t y . Ju:;t a s S.n Tcarlt .frccc?on and au to-
nc;;,iy evcn. m o r a . l i t y , depend c~n the a b i l i t y o f - the
w i l l -i,o .L'r~Jlbw t he clccree 027 i - t s -ar~ivorsa. l laws. In
Rousserl,~, .i;:h.i. Genora.1 Vil:L. , -the v ~ i l l , of t h e Sta . te
equa l ly becomes uni.vc.rst!,l, tki: f o u n t a i n of 1-i'e;lit
and. 1%-ber tq , I n IIc-gelv :c; absolu.ti-sm, ?;o sec: the w i l l
of thc: S-ka-Le as coerciv:: is t o bc base. Rousseau
rca.in-ta..ins tha-t -to conform -Lo this Gerleral Will of the
Sta t i : i s t o bc Tree a.nd the. S t a t e so f a r as it
ensures this, i s good.
Rous:;(:au bases h i s pol i -Lical doc t r i n e throughout
on his View of hurn:,i,n freedom, It i s because man i s
n f r e e :~,gcnt c:~pa,ble of be ing determined b:r himself
a u r ~ i v p r s a l 1 ~ 1 , ~ pygscribctj by lhimsclf -t;haJc; t h e S t a h
in l i k e mn,nner i s capable: of r ea l . i z ing t h e G ~ n e r a l
\!ill - i;ilc!.t i s , o f p r ~ s c r i b i n g t o i t s c l f and members
a, s i i l ~ i l . a , r u n i v e r s a l l a w . The C k n c r a l Will i s t h u s
t h e a p p l i c 2 . - t i o n o f human f reedom t o g o 1 i t i c a . l
i n s t i t u t i o n .
In 2 way, 'the - I i ~ c t ~ s s i o n i s c l o s 2 i y c o n n e c t e d
w i t h t h c problem o i f rccdom. A s wc siia.11 s e e i n t h e
c o u r s e of t h e p?*per, what l-iousseau c d l s Yreedcom i s
a t ix t tori no rnorc -t-hnr, t h e f r c e d ~ r n t o 30 what t h c
Stntr.1 i n i t s o m i n i s c i e n c c detc:rmilies. Freedom f o r
H o u s o e a . ~ is -the s y n c h r c n i z z - t i o n of a l l s o c i n . 1 exis-kc:ncc
to t h e N i l 1 o f ' $he S t a t c ,
R o u s s c s u wbshcs t o J u s t i f y t h e t r a n s i t i o a f rom t h e
h y p o t h c - t i c a l S t a t e o f n n , t u r c t o t h a t o f organized
s o c i e t y , j-LC ' b e l i c v c s tha-L .frecCio!;l i s a, nr : , turz . l g i f - t ,
a, supreme v a l u e . ijc t h e r i . f o r c fcl-l; cclrnpelled bo show
thax th rough t h e s o c i a l cori ~ ~ ~ a c t , man i n s t c a d B f
l o s i n g h i s frecdoi-a, a c q u i r e s a h i g h e r form o,I it, I-lc
s a y s ,:-.to r e n o u n c e f r e e d . ~ i I - is t o r e n o u n c e b e i n g
man;;. 55 Through t h e s o e i a . 1 c o n t r a c t , n a , t u r n . l 2 i b e r t y
i s changed f o r c i v i l l i b e r - t y . NO'W t h e o b v i o u s & a c t
is t h x t i n s o c i e t y , men a r e compe l l ed t o o'bey . the 1a.w.
Given t h i s s i - t u a t i o n , i s i - t p o s s i b l e t o h o l d - t h a t
. by e x c h a n g i n g t h c S t a t e o f n a t u r e wher'c onc was f r e e
t o do whritever h e was p l ~ y s i c a l l y cz.pa.ble o f d o i n g , f o r
t he S J m t ; c , hc becoi~tes morc and n o t l e s s f r e e than
b;.fc;rt. ?
lRcjuasc~auss t rea tment of t h i s problem o f freedom
i s spec t;.,,cula.r. lXrs trc;a-ts s o c i a l contra,c$; as
i n c l u d h g t h e t a c i t ondcr t ak ing -to submit t o t h e
Genern.1 i;!I1'.17. and whwsocver r e f u s e s t o t h i s s h a l l be
s u b j e c t tii com~m~ls io r~ . '['i'hc: c i t i z e n g ives h i s consen t
-to a1.l r;he laws i n c lucling tho,s e which a r e pa= ed
ilzspitc of' his oppsi t iox . , o,nd i.veli -those which punish
Izriiii " , !-j 6
~?.p:.-in tllc General ?!ill is ea.cl.1 man ' s r 2 a . l \ i J i . l l . r ,
!Po f o 1 i . u ~ ~ one ' s own w i l l . Is i c j ac-t f r e e l y . lIencc t o
be co:~ipi.llt.d -Lo comforrn -to an.ct a w i l l , !Che G-enora.1
w i l l , is L O be coii~p~I.l-ed t o be free. We have he re
Roussoa.usr; farnous ,jja,rn.dox,in o r d e r t k t ; , t h e s o c i a l
c o n t r ; x t may n o t be a x empty formula., i t l;a.ci t l y
i nc ludes t h e under-Laking, which. aloizc: ca.n give fo rce
t o t h e r c s t , that; wliocver x P L ~ s e s t o obey t h e General
W i l l s h a l l be forced. t o d o s o by -the whole body.
This inems that; . . . h.e :,ij.B;7 be f o r c d t o be f r e e ': .57
f n thc l as t plnr:?.:;c, i s cleaxiy ' 'br~??~f$tout o r
r ~ ~ v e a l e d -the r e l a t i o n s h i p be tween -the i nd iv idna l i sm
and :~u tho r i t a r i~~r .n i sm i n tllc th:!ugh-L o f Rouss eau.
' The sr-li-ne r a t i o n a l e , t h e s2me scheme of vs lueo , which
l e a d s him -to r e s t r i c l ; m o r a l i t y t o l i f d w i t h i n t he
Skate compels him s i m i l a r l y t o r e g a r d t h e S t a t e as t h e
sphcre o f ffeedom.
'I'bc i n d i v i d u a l l iv t .2~ a free l i . f e only w i t h i n t h e
sphere o C his c oniplc l e surrender to the omnipotent
Sta-l-13. I~L i s on1.y by t h e f:-)rcc of the S t a t e t h a t t h e
l i b e r t y o f i t s members ca,a bo secured . 13ut hiis i d c a l
l i b e r t y for the i n d i ~ i d u c t l i s a, cor;lpld;u independoncc
Lrom ?my mssuc ia t ion m d co1n~12.e lc dcpenclenco on
the S ti:-; o
Roussem rfldces an ,uri~bi~ou,c?; ?nsa.gi;L. of tEic concept
~~ f r eec lom;~ . If freedom i s frcc~dom t o do wliatever one
wislws t o do and i n p h y s i c a l l y capah lc o f do i eg , i t
i s indeed c u r t a i l e d by membership of t h e S t a , t e . Of-.
course t o c u r t a i l o n e ' s f1'1-eedom by law i s e s s e n t i a l
t o -the wel l -being o f t hc s o c i c t y , mil i n v i e w .
t h a t t hc advantages of t he s o c i e t y outweigh i t s d i s -
advantages . ifsuch c u r t a i l m e n t nceds no o t h e r j u s t i -
f i c a t i o n than i t s u t i l i ty i i .5 .7 From the above, i t
s e e m - that Kousseciu s a c r i - i ' i c c s i n d i v i d u a l l i b m t y .
Libcr-i;y, ill my view ris n o t merely a, n e g t i v e concep t ion ,
Lt doc:: n o t c o n s i s t merely i n the absence o f c o n s t r a i n t .
m e n ~ . ~ ~ & ~ t Spent e r i n h i s extreme individua.llisrn
would g7a.n-t t h a t a cc,rta,in a m o u ~ t o f S ta . t e i n t e r f e r e n c e
i s necessary t o secure l i b e r t y .
It cannot be chimed t h a t every i n t e r f e r e n c e on
the par t of the S t a t e l e s s c r s the l i b e r t y of the
indiv idual . The members of the S t a t e may be more f r e e
when a11 a r e r e s t r a i n e d f r o m doing one another mu-tu-a1
dama,ge than when one i s l e f t f r eeo t o ensla,ve ano-
ther . This p r inc ip le once admitted, the precise
amount o f S t a t e in te r fe rence necessary -to secure l i b e r t y
w i l l always be matters of particular discuss ion , Thc
o n l y re levant problem is t h a t oi ' r e s - t r i c t i n e ik t o
-the m i n i m u m rcquired by the common good.
Howcver, t h i s i s not the problzni, Ruusseau wishes
to show t h a t apparent cur ta i lment i s no curtailment
a t a l l . Hence he i ~ s l ed i n t o a pa,radoxical sta.nc1
t h a t one can be forced t o be f r e e . And the w r y f a c t
t h a t the posi t i o n s t r i k e s onc a s parn.doxica.l.;;suggcs ts
t h a t the word f r e e i s given a sense which, whatever
i t may be, i s d i f f e r e n t from the sense o r s e n m s
which i t normally bea.rsii .58
The uniqueness of Rousseauts doc t r ine l i e s i n
i t s sub t l e but e x p l i c i t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . of au thor i -
ta r ian ism with freedom. The to ta . l i t a r i an i sm impli-
ca t ion of Rousseau do not a r i s e merely out of -ale
s e v e r i t y of h i s theory of sovereignty, i t i s
-7 1 -- a p p l i c a b l e -to a l l m o n i s t i c o r a r g a n i c t h e o r i e s o f
S t a t e .
Commenting 0111 th .e ambiguous use c7f t h e c o n c e p t
3f l i b e r - L y p C o p l ~ \ s t o r ~ 3 Y c d r i c k s a y s that i ; - t r a z m f e r e n c c
la,uclaibory names o r c p i t h c t j s t o a s i t u a - t i o i l wh ich
1 o u t . t h e i r norma.1 r m g c of meaning i s 21 s t o c k
d e v i c e o f p o l i t i c a l propagaizdis t;s who wish. t o r e n d e r
-?,his s i . - t u n t i o n more a c e e p t a b l c 1' . 59 L i k e w i s e t o ca.l.1
cornyiu1::ion ; ~ b o i x g f o r c e d t o be f r c c : r i s a n i n s t a n e e
of - , -l;'hc same k i n d .
ri?l?is olcrwn-b i n Rousseau may be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r
thrr mrn?nn~~;:i~us a m b i g u i t i e s .to bc found in. 17o.usse.a~.
Tor -1- ' - , L C - : , I L C C ~ when hc say:; that t h e soc i : \ , l o r d e r i s
t h e b:i.:;is or;' r i g h t s , we ma7 ~*i~o!; unders - ta .nd i t a s
i m p l y i n g o n l y ; ; l e g a , l r i g h t ; ; , b e c a u s c :' accordiine; t o
h i m , [ r l e g i s l x t i u n g i v e s bix4l.l -LG ;nora. l . i tyi ; .60 mhis
sugges-t:; tha t t h e S t a l ; c i s -thc fouLn-i o f m o r a l d i s t i n -
t i o n and if we c o u n l c t h i s w i t h h i s d e f e n c e o f c i v i l
r e l i g i o n , i t is e a s y t o un.clorsta,nd t h a t R o u s s e a u t s p o l i -
t i c a l theory; . po in t s t o t h e d i r c c - L i o n o f t o - t a . l i t a r i a n i s m .
Rousscau thcF(:f o r 2 makes s--l;a.tumcn.ts tha-L (?could
shacli o f c. t h i c a l . : p o s i t i v i s m . 1311-t a g a i n Rousseau d o e s
n o t %hj.nkr tha.-t m o r a l i t y Gcpendc: s o l e l y o n t h e S t a J w 9
in. t h e s e n s e t h a t w h a t e v e r t h e Sta , - tc d e c l a . r e s t o be
assoc ia , t ions , hencc -they m.asJc be banished. '[The Ccneral
1Llill is gene ra l o r e l s e it i s nothing; ; .61 Sovereignty
i s i n d i v i s i b l z . Roussea ,~ r'ccognizea only -the i n d i v i -
dua l as r o d and wants each i r ld iv idua l -to t h i k k h i s
own thought. Only when. a l l .tl?c:: i n f l u e n c e s of lii t hc
p a r t i a l s o c i e ~ t i e s , espec ia . l ly thu Church ha,s becn
a.brop;a.tccl, ca.11 the? ma,j o r i t y vote express -thi. Gencral
Will.
.iionaseau s t r i c t l y nia,intaLrn kha t a , l l w i l l s must
be brough-i; t o conf'o:i.r:i -to thc general w i l l . . He Sta . tes
t h e necess i - ty of the govcrnmen-L 'co ha,vc fo rce cen!ough
t o inp1cmc.r~-t thc 1 : j . v ~ ~ of i-hti nht c . find by ho ld ing -to
the infa. l : i ibri l i t y ol" tlie (I-enera.1 i , : l i l l , i t a,utoma t i c a l l y
n1ean.s -i;?i.a.~l; i n i-t;s cxccu-t ian, bo-Lh the wisc l e g i s l z t o r
and the prinve beco!:ie infa.lli'u:l.l: aix! we can sense t he
then i i l ,~ose it:; private Will an(! t y rnn izo t h e many.
<Che p0i.n-t i s t :~ securi.: t h e suprcm.a,cy of &c o f f i -
cons t x - L l y a t he~rt . '.!he General W i l l could t h e ' r e f ore
he the b ~ s t pos s ib l e concept ion f o r t h c guidance of
p o l i t i c a l endeavor. ; ;For t h c General W i l l i s rea , l i zed
n o t when -tha-i; i s done which i s bea-t f o r the corniimnity
hut whcn i n a d d i t i o n ? t h ~ cc;rnli;-~1.n.i-ty a s a yhole has
w i l l ed - t k doing of i -1 . Ylw Genera.1 w i l l deixands n'ot
only guod govcrnmcnt h u t s c l f governmi.nt - n o t only
rxt.iona.1 ccmduct , but good w i l l . ' ; . 62 ?!"hi:; .i.s what
Roussi:?u.' :_: ~~.~;Lrllir~rs a r e a..pt -to f erg!:-t .
:Bu-t i* c m n o t 2qual.ly bc ar~u. i :d -%ha.-k; th:. Ih-i;heory
i s n o t c?.pa.blc of iievelopi~cmt in most obnoxiou.~
pers pcc t i v e . Indeed many rcTolu t ionary am1 t o t : z l i t a -
r i a n -l-2j.eorics of thc S t a t e have sprung from t h e theory
o f t he .:Gc!7~dr.al W i l l , such a.s the infc.ll;ibil . i . ty of the;
comriiiss~.rs of' t he commun:is t s . Po :l.lo\riing t h e theory
l o g i c a , l l y , one a r r i v u s a-t; w!~.:l-t m a y be c a l l e d s t r u c - t u r a l
o r %orri!a,l a u t h o r i tg r ian ism; luu t i n C , ~ S ence o r i n t e n -
t i o n a . l l y , Rousscau does no-t wish authori ta,r ia ,nisc: .
The S t a t e i s oliliniscicnt and 6112 General W i l l
could b,.: as b r u t a l a.s i t i s providentin.2.. A t ,th.is junc-
t u r e , wha-i; rema.inc i s t o determine p r e c i s e l y tihe place
and r i , h t s of t : ~ , i n d i v i d u a l i n Yousst:au's s t a t e . This
Anthro ~mlog ica l l j r humm ncrson i s a va lue i n i t s e l f .
His esseuicc as person accurea t o him n a t u r a l l y : and
n o t a.s :: r e s u l t of h i s mcmluership of the s t a t e .
Individual : ; havc. t o bc. t aken a.l-td t r o a t c d i n h i s
i n t r i g s i c , m e t a p h y s i c a l 2nd onto1ogi.ca.l wor th.
Thert! i s no d ~ u b ' c t h a l f o r Rousseau, t h c S n d i v i -
dual I?-s no worth outs id^ t h c S L a t e If an i n d i v i -
d u a l P u Frc::,cloi 1 i s [email protected] l on ly as a member &f t h e
S t a t ? , how ::),re we sure --Lha-t such a, freedoin e n a b l e s
thi: f u l J e s t a,c - tua . l iza- t ion o f t h c personhood 3 This
ncl ti011 .-)I" frcc.tloi:i, how much v z l u e ca,n wmr, a t t a c n
-to i t '>
P. 7 . 8 .
t). 21.
P. 29.
P.47.
P. 38.
I?. 39.
60.
G I .
62.
Natu ra l R i g h t and H i s toryo ..-- - 2 * - - A --- * * ---- -*A-$
~.lnoi: ; , Chiccjgo I-2c s s 1953) P.32.
I n h i s organi,c S t a t c , i;hc s o c i a l con t rac t gives
a r c r n ~ r ~ ~ b e r s and w h o s e voic t i s t l ? ~ e n i l l . I n
t ha i; t k : ~ Inc'ividuc211 posses $sea k i@i is inviol able hy
n person as a. matter o f j u ~ t i c c . .
!Phc Individua.1 being an i n t e g r a l par t o f -khc
S ta te or i d s microcosm cannot be 1-o{;icall.y s a i d t o
possess a, rrigh-l; aga,inst, tlw whole of which he i i s
a part, any more -tha.n an o r ? ; m of the human body ca,n
be sr;,iil -Lo possess a sepera te w i l l f r o m the body i;f
. .
.~.f thc S-ta.'ce i s but a inor2. l person whose l i f e consis-ts i n thc un.ii)n af :its members 2nd if -thi. m o s t iiirpo~'tant of i:ts needs i s th::~,t o f S.ts own pc-eserv.: t i o n , i-i;
r e q u i r e s a univl. r5ii.? and. com:n~lsivt . % fo rce t o move z.n6 d.lris!~ooe of every par-L in t h e manner most agreeab le t o the whole . As n:-:~-ixre {-:ivi:s t o e v i r y r:ian abso lu t e power over 9.11 h i s members, the.: Soc:iz,1 Colitra.ci; g ives t h c body p o l i t i c an ahso lu t e power over i t s own Ar~d i t i s . th is 33.me power which, d i r e c t e d by - thz Ghneral \:Jill beazs , as I have said
... t11c Enme Of SOY-creigl.:.
as t h a t . ^Pke i n d i v i d u a l p!>sse:;ncs such r i g h t s r7,s
bu t only an thc c o n d i t i ~ n -I;ha.-t lie doe:; i - t as -the S - b a t c
h i s c h i l d r e n but onay i n a.ccordanc~c with thc V i l l of
-the S t a t e . Onto log icn l ly speaking, the i n d i v i d u a l has
dua l . Tndivitlual i d e a l i s n o t permit-tzd by -the S i a t c .
So far as a n a c t i o n corresponcls to t h e Will. o r -the
sovere ign , thc i i n d i v i d u a l h : ~ s r i g h t t o e x e r c i s e it,
but h ? s no such corresponding ri(;h i; -to pursue any
of such r i . ~ < h t ulider h i s own a,us pices . It i s good f o r
t h cohcsion of t i i ~ S t a t e t h a t t h e r i g h t s of k c i n d i v i -
dua l IJE: cur-tniiec!, bu t i f h e cannok f r ee ly . e x e r c i s e
w i th in t h ~ l e g i l ima te bo1m2~s~ % h ~ n i t i s no r ' ight at;
A r i g h t "cough no t aboolu t,c i.n i t s e l 1 i s a, nmra.1
I i r i ~ i t ~ ~ , t ~ ~ i ~ n u I should. have a - k c . ( , c m ~ t r o i . over i t ,
no-t what R.ousseau meam when he ss,ys a
It i s agredd th.a.-t; a].% which each one al . iena. tes i n vir-Lue of the s o c i a l p pac t , of h i s powerr;, h i s ma,-i;crial possess ions a n d . of h i s l i b e r t y cons5s-Ls only i n t h e por-t ion of a l l t hese ~ i g h t s whosa use i s moment t o t h e co~i~munity. Xu-t i t must be agreed, a l s o .tl?a.t t h e sovere ign a lone i s tho judge of -1;ha.t- impor-ta~ice. 2
I-lousscau g ives what 11. y be c a l l e d a g i e c e r ~ a l
1 i rn i t ;~ t ion of t h e sovere ign I3ower. JTe b e l i e v e s t h a t
the power of t he sovcrcii:n over t412 individu8, l i s
l i m i t e d t o t he promotion of t he goo6 o f tho whole.
The Sovereign cannot of i t s n a t u r e do anyth ing
-the body p o l i t i c even
lioussenu frans'fcr.:; h i s :I( ' . !:I 91' m o r a l s u f f i c i e n c y of
thc subj i ci; to the sovorei2:i ccn~verscly ccmi?ot be any-
t h ing o-they than tha L i3.f cornpletc subjec t ion .
w i l l i n t!?e o n l y i r ue ground f o r inoral lLber ty . It
i s a l s o i n thc i n t t r s s t of t h i s 1-iberty t h a t vvcryone
?h i s compulsion i s .!'.I; t h e h. ighest i n t e r e s t o f both coap~$]~;lnit$ mil, i r ~ d l v i d ~ . ~ . l , oii?c,ce i - t i s e s sen t i a l . t o t h e forrmer -that %he Genera.1
i n t c r e s t be safegxarded and t o the l a t t e r t h n t he bi. d e l i v e r e d from bondage . . . and from dependence uuon any o t h e r i n d i v i -
d-ual which i s a, neg..-;,-tion of freedom.5 kLh?AY
We have seen t11:ri; f o r 1 ~ ; u s s e a . u ~ l i b e r t y men,ns @ram
o t h e r s ?ad ilc pe~ldence on t h c St.: to and n o t f reed om t o
;,qy s c l 1 i n i t i a t i v e . li? t h c l i g h t of our work, i t
rcrnqins to b r i n g out the, imp l i ca i;ions o f t h i s mo-vcl
yencos t o p roper ty . Some of h i s r e f e r e n c e s seem t o
be i n s ~ i r e d by b l zos t i l i - t y towards t h e i n s t i - t u t i o r - .
For i n s t a n c e , h i s j udgemxt i n t h e Discourse -..-.. ~-~.:-~ .-.--. -~---- Sur ~..
L'inega.li 'ie on t h c f i r s t inan who proclaimcil ::ibhis i s . --:-~ -....xL=--x.% .*
niirzet; over a, piccc: of l a n d , shows h a t r e d f o r : p r iva t e
proper-Ly. Again h i s s t a . t c iwn t tha:;. : ; i f we fo l low t h e
progress of incq,ual . i ty i n i t s d i g e r e n t rcv201utions9
we s h a l l f i n d tha . t thc e:2-t;1.b:l.ish.men-t o f t he 1a.w of
t h e rij~;!:.i: of proper ty was i - t c firs.i; tcrm:~6., i s and
ex-trc.:i:ic. unccsmplc!iicni;a.ry rzrnark.
Furthermore R ~ u s s e a u . ~ ~ m p h 3 . , ~ i s on t h e - i ;o ta l i ty
llkcn thererforc we exainirle c l o s e l y a 1 1 of R ~ ~ s s c s m ' s
r e f e r e n c ? ~ t o p r o p e r t y throughou-t h i s en-tirc. /works,
equivoc:2l rcconenclat ion 01 i t s a b o l i t i o n i n f a v o u r
o f t h e S ta . t e . Indeed nuch of what he sa.ys i s no
more i;l;han mora l i n , d i g n a t i o n a.t t h e greed. o f tlhe few
who deny o r u s u r p t h o p r o p e r t y -- - . ights o f t h e many;:.t3
On t h e one I ~ m d i f we f o l l o w s t r i c t l y i30me o f
Roussea,uts st3,temen-t on property, we c a n n o t m o i d the
conclusi-on % h a t a l l vela-tigcs o f p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y be
swept ::.way. Thc s o v e r b i & ~ l o r Genera l W i l l i s always
r i g h t , i f i t decrees :public ownership, t h e ~ p ~ v a t e
ownernhi11 becdmes immortll and anyone who d e f i e s i t
w i l l be $ ' force t o be f r e e ' ; . On the o the r h-nd, :ithe
s o v e r e i ~ ~ , n on i t s p a r t , cannot impose u s e l e s s r c s t r i c -
t i o n s on tllr cornnzunity; i t ?annot uveii w i l l such
a th ing . . . . lF9
By the t e r n iFusalcss" Rousseau lxesns ntlt sometliing
meri:ly ' imwofi-Gah_Lu ~ T J " l l r mrr t c r i a l sense but h w l ~ a t
i s rnorT12y undesirable. Thc ques t ion should r a t h e r
read l 8 i o ii i;ood for LElc co:rlmuni ty t h a t 811 ~ ~ r i v n t c
ownership be prohibi-tsd::. TO T f -b, quc;stion reads
* r r tok i , then c i thc 1qucs!ion i s thu:; no L one of u t i l i t y
Lo th,: i l id ividual i n the narrow, m a t c r i a l i i s t i c sense ,
but of the morn1 good o.f tl12 cnnirnunityf;.Ih
'Clic point that Rousseau i s md:.ing i s t h e r e f o r e
t h a t iJ ;ly property is consxlered by t l x S t a t e a s
no t nzor : l l y conclucivc to the ~ : - ~ e r , c r ~ ~ l goodg the Ska te
mqy w i l l i t s dernlse, 2nd no t t413 ,, nriv2te pro m r t y
should bc abrogated. I L ~ 9 d ' lzr wcrfls, t h e r i g h t
one has ovcr 112s property i s subordinatc t o a supe r io r
demand lilailc b~y the S- t ;~ to . 4 s wc s l m l l ace in a b
l a t e r t reatment of var ious views on property , &hi s
. i dea of subordinatrLon of the i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t t o a
more gcnera,l righ-L of the con~~i~ull i ty i s genera.lly accepted.
-86-
By t o t a l a l i e n a t i o n , Rousseau means t h a t p r o p c r t y
shbuld zlwnys be kep t suborclinai,o t o t he publ ic wel--
f a r e . I n t h e mlilc, . .& hc speaks o f p o p e r t y as t ' invio-
l a b l e x~.l.d sac red , i n s o f a r a s i t remains a pa- r t i -
c u l a r and inciividua.1 r i g h t , bu'c a s soon a s i t ; %is con-
s ide red 2,s coamon t o a l l c i t i z e n s , i t i s subniitted t o
t he General W i l l . and that wi1.1. zan a m i h i l a , t e itrP. I2
Wha-t Rousseau abhorcsr i s no t ths i n s t;i'cu.-tion 0;E ,pro-
per.Ly bu t t h c ; v ~ : ~ t ~ c i ~ l ~ l y i ~ ~ d i v i c l . u a l i s I;ic i d e a s r e s -
pectin.^ it31? which wcrc so ,o;r.evl:~lc?nt i n h i s da,y.
As in Pagothey, fi.ii;:gkls and t h e Orthotlrhx Ca,-tholic
t each ing , i"iussea,u rmin t a i n s - that -there i s no such
t h i n g as absol.ute ownership. Property i s a, t r u s - t a s
such is amenable in i t s u s e t o th-e s u r v e i l l a n c e of t h e
community. A t -the same t ime, w e dany t h a t I-Cousseauv s .
ide;, abhorcs the seeds of Socialisfii .
It w i l l be good -to compare Roussea.ugs po,&ition
wi th those of o t h e r schools of -thought on p r i v a t e
p roper ty t o m a r * ou t t h e s -Lr ic t a r e a of d i f f e r e n c e .
The Ut i l i t a r i ; 3 ,n s , i n postu1a:ting the o b j e c t of govern-
mcnt t o b c the procur ing o f "-thi: g ro ,a tes t happiness
;f -the g r e a t e s t nambcr':I7, may admit t he compedxnce of
the St? , te s e t up by -Lhc inajori-ty, t o r e g u l a t e economic
a f f a i r s in any manner which t h e r e a l i z a t i o n of t h i s
E1grea, tes t happinessii may appear t o i t $0 demand, even
t o t he e x t e n t of e s t a b l i s h i n g com-olete S t a t e ownership.
S o c i a l i s n i s l a t e n t in t h e i r thought , but t h e only
reason f o r t h e oppos i t ion of t h e u h i l i t a r i a n s t o Socia-
l i s t i c measures, governmenta.1 i n t e r f e r e n c e and t o
Rousseau, l a y i n t h e i r !premise of an under ly ing
harmony, which would u n f a i l i n g l y comd i n t o
platy i f t h e p r i n c i p l e of 1a.issez-;'?.ire were un ive r sa -
l l y appliedir. T4
Accoril . ing t o %lie Benthami t e ~ l a s t i n g ec.onomic
can t h e corn~nunj-ty anct t h c i n d i v i d u a l ,
on13 through t h e firm opera-bi.on of economic 1a .w
inhe ren t i n t h e natiure o f t h ings . Ey c o n t r a s t , t h e
u t i l i - t a r i < m s , while ma.inta,ining an element of govern-
mental i n t e r f e r e n c e , ins is-L on t h e i n i - t i a t i v e a n d
freedom of t h e i n d i v i d u a l as r ega rds t h e a p p l i c a t i o n
of h i s proper ty t o v a r i o u s d e s i r a b l e ends , Though
Bentham :ind Rousaeau subsc r ibe -to a common Jpos i t i v i sml : ,
t h e posi- t ivism r e s t s on di1rferen-t suppos i t i ons .
Roussea.uts p o ~ i l : i t . i s m i s based on t h e t h e s i s -i;ha.t, li.., :;he i d e a l S t a t e , t h e G-er~eral i i J i l l its m0ra.ll-y r i g h t and con-- s equen t ly wiorally b ind ing on a l l in&vi - ctua,l members. Ben-Lha.mP s pos i t i v i sm 6s based on -:;he ascerta,iiled f a c t t h a t governments e x i s t axd t h e probabi l - i ty t h a t , wi thout them, t h e r e would be no o-ther, they a r e , i n a. word, u se f i l l , E.t i s hi6;hly d e s i r a b l e t h a t they become,
o r be made, more u s e f u l , t h a t i s t o say, t h a t they y e r n i t t h e gene ra l i nc rease of happiness a.n.3 ubirnately t h e harmony of i n d i v i d u a l happiness wi th that o f Soc ie ty a s a, whole . 115
T h e a a l x r a l rii:ht t h o e r i s t s s t and ing on %he c h r i s -
t a i n $r:ldition ahhore -tihe concep-Lion o f abso lu t e S t a t e
in'cerference . For them, mora,lity is no-kliing confer red
! ". i lLis . A&'rian . - .-a r - J,~+~Lice a = = advocates govermmlent
i n t e r f e r e n c e i n economic a,.f C a i r s . SLzt 'chis i n t e r f e r - .
r i g h t of proper ty , i s e s sen - t i a l .to i-ts u n i v e r s a l
vindica. l ; ion, su re i - t w i l l address i t s e l f t o s ecu r ing
. . . the proper-by r i g h t which i s a.a r e a l , i n the poor
man as i n t he richll.16
Tn -Lliir, respect, the 2 o s i t i o n of & h e ?;hzl
goyernmental s m v e i l l a . n c e , i s c l o s e Rous:;ea,u's. But
they however differ i n rea,lil;;i. According to
Rousseau, t h e irldiviclual su r r ende r s a l l h i s right -to
the $ta-Lc. He enjoys c i v i l r i g h t s , t h a t i s t o say
r i g h t s con€ Yered on him by the S t a t e . According t o
R i n e , ihe property r i @ t inheres i n the ind iv idua l and
i'he S t a t e i s a mere e x t e r n a l device of cnnvenimce
se-t up f o ~ the purpose of preven-tine men from wiola . t ing
$he n a t u r a l righ-i;:; of o thers . IQor B i r ie , i he inrl ivi-
ever1 when such a uruperty is lcgi i i r r ia le ly his . He
exorcises n o freedom 01 cont ro l ovor h i z p ~ o p e - r t y ,
Rous s e a l .
I n the presenta t ion o L t h e Church9 n s o c i a
doc t r ine a s contained i n the ~~ocuinents o f the second
suyer io r primary r i g h t de r iv ing from the u n i v e r s a l
ap:mOprfa.-Lion of economic good of the e a r t h i s made
by the Church, In. t l ~ c dovwnent i t i s s t a t e d t h a t
K%ercfore , the be-Lter to under l ine %lie r e l a t i v e
cha rac te r of p r iva te property, inxmuch a s i t is
a secondary r i g h t , we s h a l l speak f i r s t l y of the
-83 - the $-'ci->tee He enjoys c i v i l r i g h t s , t h a t i s t o say
r i g h t s conf rered on him b3; the S t a t e . According t o
B i n e , the :~ roper ty r i g h t inheres 511. the ind iv idua l and
cafinot be ,surrendered. -to L:le St?.-Le.
The S t a t e i s a, mere externa,l device of cnnvenimce
s e t ur, f o r tl ic mrpose of preventing men &om wiola . t ing
the nntura'l r i g h t s of o thers . Tor &ine , i h e i n d i v i -
exorcises no freedom 01 cont ro l over h i s property.
'Clzis r:!.gai.n i s a mairked diff crenc. c 1383t- ~ e e n :i%.ine and
Roussea~~ .
I n %he presenta-t ion O L the Churcb7s sociaIi
doc t r ine as contained i n the documents o f the second
vi7 t i c T m Council , Gaudiuin . * = e ..--z t Soes *L . a 117, suhordina,%ion
of the righ-k to pr iv :~ i;e ? z o p e r t y a s '!secondary t o a.
supe r io r primary r i g h t de r iv ing from the u n i v e r s a l
ap:~ropriat ion o f economic good of thp e a r t h is mafie
by the Church, In the dovument i t i s s t a t e d t1ia.t
x fhercfore , the S e t t e r t;o under l ine t h e r e l a t i v e
cha rac te r of p r iva te property, inr~smuch a s i t is
a secondary r i g h t , we s h a l l speak f i r s t l y of the
genera l r e l a t i o n s of rnrm t o the goods of the e a r t h , as
a, ;;prin?nry ~ i g h t , n:,;,-:jl?,i, the u n i v e r s a l land eomrnon
purpose of goods, and then pass on t o t h e l eg i t imacy
of p r iva t e property;: . 18
The iidea. i s tila-t m a n l-aa,s a na-itural o r i n n a t e r e -
l a t i o n w i t 1 1 1;hc gooclrs of t h e e a r t h . Hc depends on them
f o r hi:; subs i s t ence . IIc equally hns other. needs besi -
rm t u r c h e s t r i v e s t o rnakc himself inlclcpendent o f mate-
r i a l coi-itinecncies, t o assert hj:-: n u,utanomy wiLh
rc;r,gmj t o t h e na.turrll worl il. S! r i c t l , , r d cwndeat on
-thin w o r l d f r o m , zs from orzt. ;v~int of view he f s, h e
wishes, @ran another point of view, t o t ransform h i s
dependence inlto a dortlination, .I s u h j e c t i o n , wkich w i l l
permit him t o dis:?osc o f t hese inclis?ensa.blo goods i n
3, frei. an(>. rzutonor~lous i:?anniir';.l'3
Man t h e r e f o r e i s i n a, p r iv i l aged .nosit ion wi th
regarti t o t h e m a t e r i a l p,oods, In as much as ' he i s .. FL yerson , , a being capable o f e x e r c i s i n g conCrol
over h i m s ( s l f , t o ma,lLe plans f o r h imse l f , he pmeascs
an ~ ; i n t e ~ i o r i t y ; ' which makes hirn in. a, c e r t a i n way
absalu-te by comparison, wi th -the goods of t h e e a r t h .
T h i s p r iv i l aged pos i t ion of man causes the idea, of
p r i v a t e proper ty t o come immeciia.-ti:l:y to mind.
!The right of p r i v a t e proper ty i s t l ze re fo r i n -
he ren t i n t h e r i g n t which a man has a s a persc,r t o the
use oi' t h ? goodt oL the e a r t h . Econorni.~ goods being
:indi.pens;l,lslc f o r man t o be a.1;lo t o l i v e and develop
h i m e l f , 1za.s t h e r e f o r e an i n a l i e n a b l e r i g h t .bo- , . take
them f o r his own, use , ant1 t o use them i n accordance
wi th h . i s freedom of ac-Lion. ;;,nd h i s needs , and t o t r a n s -
for id tllci-11 by h i s l c ~ h o u r s o as to a d a p t them t o hrs use.
T h u n u Lion of proper ty add:; thc idea o f ~na,liag;cment,.
o f it i::: P O U : ; . ~ n,l?rl of :-lrlrnini.:;tr.?t.ioi~~. i t C ~ n . ~ c q u ~ - t l l l y p
i'v ,cl I I when a, rt 'ur~thcr p*inci 31e, 3. scconci:iry na,&ural
r i g h t , co:ncs t o l e g i ~;:LITI~SG a, p r iva t e appro .wia . t ion of'
-i;hings , -th (2 fundamental and u ~ ~ r L w r a a 1 cha,ra.c ttxr o f
thi:, h igher &iti;h-t t o usc mus-t be saf i:@mrrded;i. 20
T h o teaching poin ts ou-t t h a t tb.c rifyh-t t o privztc:
proper ty is no t ab:;olutc, though a n l c - t i ol;oi!, s t i l l
remain,? a suborclina.tc r i g h t . his i n p l i c i t ly involves
L ~ i n s that -the a p p r o p r i ~ t i o n o.C goofis could be done
i n t h ~ followin{: ways, I t can remain c o l l e c t i v e ,
-that i s , on t h c ;?art.. v:' ooc.Lcl;y, oj:* i t can bc ilprrivate,
th'at i s t,o say o n the p a r t of th, inciividua.ls o r
groups of i n d i v i d u a l s bound i n t o n s s o c i ~ . t i o r , , 1dha.t
i s c a l l e d SOY&UML'~ go oil^ must bc ItCt i n p r i m - t e 1
proper i;y i s ,a n a t u r a l ind iv idua . l r i g h t , while on ?,lw
o t h ~ r 3inn3, i t :~f f i r rns t l m t t h c use of goods :should
remain c orti~non. IIowc art i;heiic ri quircments iko be
r c c o n c i l l c d ?
. - as i t i s a n o s ; ; e w t l r ~ . ~ means wber,:by persons can a f f i r m
<A,
\ t h e i r sp i r j . L of ini-Li:.tivc ::.rid sense of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . 23
The Sta.'cc owncrship i s jus-i;iPia.blc 8, only f o r a
limi-Lc(t s c c t o r , ,swllcn i t i s r cqu i r cd by t h e cominon
adminis t ra , t i cn l eg i t ima t e l y om. -Lhc m a n s of production,
w h p tlzcsc goods can involve an economic power which
i t woul(1 b i a g a i n s t the public good -Lo ].cave i n t hc
hands o f p r i v a t e persona;; .25
it is p o s s i b l e t o s e l l o r givc FiT:Jii.y one's r r o p c r t y .
-95-
sugges t s . Cne can possess o r c o n t a o l what i s n o t
one ' s own, The r igh t ; 01 o m e r u h i o con t inues even
when possess ion has been ended. If f o r i n s t a n c e a
t h i e ; stcals ay p r o p e r t y , tliough I 110 l onge r possess
r e j c c 5 e d . li.;h.c owner is ir:,-i;-c-insica,ll l i m i t e d by
aoc ia .1 consid era.-Lions . Ownershil~ i s i n - t ; r i n o i c a , l l y
l i m i t e d by %he ri( ;hts o f o t h e r s and this e x a c t l y i s wha.t
i s nean t i n t h e Church 's o f f i c i a l t each ing .
A l l materia .1 th. ings a r e essen t ia , l l .y f o r %he corn-
mon good says Aquinas. So no c r e a t e d person could
own t h e 3ub.s-ta,nce of a.i?ythiizr; bu t only God. There fore
t h 4 u l t i m a t e moral p r i n c i y l e is t h a t t h e goods a r e
f o r the good of mahkind. If an i n d i v i d u a l o r group
has any r i g h t over any th ing ; t k i s r i g h t i s subo rd ina t e
t o t h e g e n e r a l i t y of mma.rlkind. This Thornistic p o s i t i o n
emphcisizes the le{;i t i ~ n a c y o!" i n t e r v e n t i o n .
Ya.t.:othey s t a , t e s -thal; owners hi.!^ i s i t s e l f l i m i t e d
by wha.t he c a l l s : ;social. obligation^^ o-f ownerdhip o r
t h e ' ) p r io r r i g h t of t h e community:r. So a p e r w n i s
no t f r e e to use ' h i s properly i n a n t i - s o c i a l way. By
i t s very n a t u r e , p r i v a t e p r o w r . i y ?ms a, s o c i a l equa. l i ty
d e r i v i n g Irom th(+ law oi 1;he cornnnmit,y. Fagothey s
d e f i n i t i o n 03 priva-te y r o p c r t y i s ao~nchow scacndalous
Nevertheless t l l e r e i s an important po in t Bn
whatever may be donc. 1,Ji t h sn t h e 1 i i n j tc ol' ownership,
t h e r i g h t belongs t o t h e owney a lone . Thi.8 is wha.t
i t means t o be an owner. So t h e concept of ownership
ha.s over a r2a.rtj.cular t h ing . Hi(:gins i n t h e 1.a.st P.
phrase o f h i s d e f i n i t i o n a.cid:; fa a.ccordance w i t h - n
l a w : ; , s o laws l i m i t a. persons r i g h t both i n ' . c i v i l
and n a t u r a l laws.
Roussedu i s r i g h t i n i n d i c a t i n g t h i s a spec t o f
o f f i c i a l c o n t r o l over i n d i v i d u a l ' s r iat . But wha.t
he bla.t;antly f a i l s t o see i s the reasonableness i n b
c o n c e d i n g t h e i n d i v i d u a l the personal i n i t i a i i v e over
what he lell;iJcimitely owns. The wnoie clamour f o r t h e
r ighl ; 01 proper ty i s a, c311, to a l low t h e person i n h i s
-3 7 - a b i l i t y t o e x e r c i s e con t ro l . ove r h i m s e l f , ma.ke p l a n s
f o r h imsel . f , To a c t u a l i z e t h a t i r ? t e r i o r i t y which
makes him i n a, way absolu-Le. I? ,ousseauss S t a t e conflers
t h e i n d i v i d u a l c i v i l r i g h t o r physj.ca.1 r i g h t and n o t
moral o:r i r i ; r . i n s i c r i g h t . It i s a, m o ~ a l , r i g h t t h a t
g i v e s e s s e n c e t o p e r s o n a l freedom. It i s n e c e s s a r y
t h a t t h e S t s , t e shou ld c o n f e r civ2 r i g h t s as a means
t o a c h i e v i n g m ~ r a , 3 right^. C i v i l ri{&t;s shou ld qiode-
r,?tr! moral rights w l ~ i c l z a, person 1~a.s ovrcr h i s p r o p e r t y
but; sho;l.lil not decima.t;o or c>'blLitcru.te L-t . In -[;hi:.
l i g h t , we hol-d Rouoocau'~ S t a t e s v s p c c t f o r it; c a n
Occassion a s o c i a l i s t cont ro l . .
3 I ! 0 111 FE AND DEfTI: ,. *. a a .. *.- . * - -:.- -.. *:* a- -:- - -. . . > ---. ~..:-
lu
We b e g i n by asser-tt;ing that; l i f e i s a, su:?renie v a l u e .
It i s a v a l u e t h a t canno t be e q u i p e r a t e d with any
o t h e r , Though t h e absence of o t h e r v i t a l v a l u e s may
diminiish t h e v a l u e o f l i P e , i t n e v e r t h e l e s s rernains
suprein.::. 'i'his d c e s n o t mean t ha t we m ~ s t s t r i v e t o
k e e p a l i v e a . t a l l c o s t . T r u e l y a l i f e which c a n on1.y
be s u s t a i n e d by ext;raordirie;cv:;j means, o r a comatosc
1%-fe o r a g u i l t y l i f e ca.lii_lot bwt be a.ll.owed t o end
o r be t e r m r n a t e d . We add a l s o that; l i f e a g a i n cou ld
be t e r m i n a t e d on ly -to s a v e a, l i f e . So on ly a, v a l u e
-98 - s u f f i c i e n t 1 2 equa l t o l i f e could g u a r ~ m t e e i t -'
t e rmina t ion .
The r i g h t of t h e S-ta-te t o i n f l i c t ca,p.i ta, l
punishment ha s bec?z, a, debe.t.s.ble , one. Some schoo l s
of tho--uf;ht SUpgose i t o t h e r s a f f i r m i t , The ques-
t i o n i s whether t h e S ta . to laas t h e r i i ~ , h t t o t e r m i n a t e
t h e l i P e of the .i.ndivi..dual., IT yes, under wh2.t con-
d i t i o n s could t h c S- ta tc be j u s t i f i e d t o an-thokize t h e
dea.th !if" a, person 18 .the coi;:miosion o f any offence
si. lfl".iciel~.t t,c a t - t r a c t 13 en i , l l . Aienal ty ? ROusoeau
aS.Cirms t h r : r i g h t of the S Sta:te t o ter lr- inate l i f e and
treats the i ssue i ~ i t h c S o c i a l C!ontra.c:t. Eva.:= -..~ ,. ,- - ... . . - ... -.-*.-.. .
Two ques t i ons are ep-t i n h i s connectrion. ..,
F i r < ~ ' - l o ~ . > r has man eve r a, rigli-L t o d e s t r o y h i s own
I . i f e ? Secondly, and t h e one appro-pria-te t o
Rousseaurs o rgan i c consep t ion of thc , S t a t e . Can a
mar, ; ;cut o f f an arm o r t ~ a r out h i s eyes wi-thraut
i n j u r i n g himself ' ?it28 In r e p l y t o t h e f i r s t q u e s - b i o ~ ,
Thomists l i k e Fago'cht:y and Hi.g(_~ins deny tha . t rnan has
m y r i g h l o.ver h . i s l i f e . Aquinm h imse l f atrovre t o
inclixde s.~.i . icide i n a. ,small s c a l e t l o P cr imes &ha.t
ca.n licvcr be j u s t i f i e d . Hook s a y s t1ia.t t h e r e 5s
no vC;luc? fen l i v i n g j u s t any kind o f - l i f e . . PLato
on h i s own p a r t s ays t h a t where my l i f e i s a pos i t i v t :
-99 - burden -to t h e s o c i e t y , one c2.n br ing i t t o an end.
Hume ex to l s suidi.de a s a,n a c t of patrot ism and
reapons ib ib i ty , s o a.lso do the s t o i c s . . A l l these
people jus- t i~fy o r un. just i fy su ic ide irl one way o r the
o the r , Roussean admits t h a t on no account or con-
d i t i o n does a man have the r i g h t t o take h i s own l i f e
He s:-ijw :chow then can ma.n transrni~-t t o the sovereign
thzlt zame r igh- t which they h m r : not, go-t i ; , 29 l3ut he
mainataim t h a , t iieve~yrnah 1nu.u a right to risk his
own lift in o r d e r t o same i t ; ; , 3 O
K0il::se;w a a y a t h a t thr: rnan who entors c i + i l so-
cie-Ly i n order t o enjoy i t s innumerable b e n e f i t s ren-
der a himself amenable t o t hc laws whi.ch makc
thesoebenef i t s r e a l , :bhe who w i l l s -the end w i l l s t h e
meanslr.31 It i s o f t e n said. t h a t laws a,re made f a r
man and not vice-versa. Nust t h e essence of -Em law
be t o secure b e n e f i t s o r t o punish ? Rousseau
seems t o be a.ti;ributi.ng the essence of law t o :
punishment. I+ the laws e x i s t t o punish s o l e l y , then
one might be prone t o see the S t a t e e s s e n t i a l l y ~ m
enemy.
Rmishinent i s 2.n accidenJcal na ture of laws. If
we ;, p i s h the I~~iy l ica ,h ions f u r t h e r , w e may a r r i v e
t o t h e conclusion t h a t the S t & t e ha.s the r i g h t &o decree
dea th a t the minutes t offcnce. ICX t h i s i s what
Rousseai,lx i-neans by r i s k t h m he i s a murderer. &Idhat
h e moans i s t n a l t h e I , , c ~ ~ c to lii't i s ileatll.
Mzn musk choose between t h c unbr id led b u t preca-
r i o u s freedom of t h e 3tz:te of ma,ture and t h e order
and s e c u r i t y o.f s o c i e t y . I f he chooses t h e l a t t e r ,
necessary .to i t a conserv:3l-.i 011. Tli cornmi-Ling himself
when i t i s nocessar:, t h t some one a11.ould d i e , One
leavilag himself atlt t h e m e r a y o.i inc lo,w means t h a t
he is h e l p l e s s before i t . Hc says i n t h e --., S o c i a l -- s
He who wishes t o conserve h i s l i f e wi th t h e ass is tazice 1 ~ 7 f o t h e r s ought $Is0 t o ,,o;ive f o r them wher necessary. For c i t i zen* . i s no longer t h e judge of t h e p e r i l t o which thc laws wish t h a t he expose himself: and when t h e pr ince s a y s t o him, i t i s expedient t o t h e S t a t e tha. t you d i e , he ought -Lo d ie . . . .32
Under what cond i t ions may t h e pr ince decree t h e
dea th o C 3, c i t i z e n ? We s h a l l look at the second
obj e c t i o n , But obviously we c z n w t accept h i s p r i n c i p l e
ba,sod on r i s k , f o r t h e r e i s no assurance t h a t . t h e
i n d i v i d u a l has naz.de h i s l i f e guLlty o r t h a t h i s e x i s -
t ence i s a t h r e a t t o St-e-te s e c u r i t y . I n f a c t t h i s
p r i n c i p l e p re sen t s a mass of i n e x p l i c a b l e nccssense .
C a p i t a l puni-skimen-t i s a form of i.unishmel?t , which
p re sc r ibes dea,th penal ty f o r c e r t a i n of;':ence. :mni--
shbents i n gene ra l a r e r e s o r t e d t o by la,w f o r v a r i o u s
r4asolic, J u s t l i k e m y o t h e r pliil .osophica1 i s s u e ,
there i.,s a, g e r ~ c r a l cont rovors ie : ; :3,nd d i v c r s i t k e s of
O p i n i ~ i ~ ~ r e g n r d i ng pun.islmc:a b , This controvery i s
not &E s imply t v a l ack of c-mpiric:: l evidence a,-bcmt
what viclrlns b e s t , but a . l s o ::t-.:rns .i'.coin disagreement
s,bou t whn l p m i s h a e n t should xcom-nl.i~l;!i. 1 - k ; is a t
t h i s point that the phi losophica , l p r i n c i p l e s - o f j u s t
punishment become involved.
According t o Rayles and Ilenley i; punishnnnt i n v o l -
ves t h e im-:qositicn of such und.c::irable condithons as
dea th , ?hys i ca l pain o r depr iva , t ion o f l i b e r t y which
normally it i s ethica.l:ly wrong t o impose on othcr:;,7,3
Conseq~en t1 .y~ punibshrnent r e q u i r e s some aims thafit w i l l
e t h i c a l l y j u s t i f y i t . C a p i t a l punishment- is an as-
pec.t of c_..i.;.!iinc,l punishment. BuL how ljus t i f i a b l e i s
j t t o ;punish gene ra l ly r> and in . what circumsta.nce
is dc;q-iJl penal ty j u s t i f i e d . ' 2 How do we f i n a l l y r e -
conc i l e it wi th i?oussuaui s philosophy, about t h e
a measure o f jus tir"ic=ltion. t i for c a o i t n l -runishn~ent.
- 103 -- qucztion. But przvention i s more r a d i c a l and c e r t a i n
and the m o s t e f f e c t i v e preventive i s death. If a
murderer is k i l l e d , he c?-1 I_ea,sJc w i l l do no more
i m r d t r ~ ,
Rquinas n? , tura l l a w t tzeory combines both r e -
tribut;ivc anddeterrence c o n s i d e r a i ~ o n s . According t o
d m c l o -led by doing, pn i sh~ i l en t can a l s o eha,ble tlze
wrong docrs t o beeomc habitua. Led -to a c t i n g r & h t l y . 3 4
~ c c b r d h g t i n a t u r a l r ig l i t theory, the aim of
p u n i s h m n ~ i s t o p ro tec t peoples r i g h t s H 35, in the
hypothet ica l s t a t c of na tu re , each person has the
r i g h t t o punish the t ransgrass ion of the nat taml
r i g h t s of anyone. Since punkhment e x i s t s t o p o t e c t
righ.i;:;, i t s imposi t ion w i l l appear t o deprive the b
wrong il.qer of h i s iia-hral rights, locke provedthis
by mcn.nr; of h i s doc t r ine o i r:.CorPeiturel; which
s ta ies t l ~ ~ t i n commit-ting a wrong, the wrong doer i n
effec-b d e c l a r e s war on the s o c i e t y and t h u s f o r f e i t s
his r igh- tW.35 The m t u r a l r i g h t s theory adop t s a
d e t e r r e n c e view of punishimnt . TI12 problems wi-th t h i s a p p o a , c h are f i r s t l y , i s
every a c t of wrong do ing equiva.ler,t t o a, d .ecla.rat ion
of war on the soc id ;y ? Secoxl ly docs a, wrong doer
f o r f e i t a l l h i s ri{;j?'cs ? A t l e a s t a. c r i m i n a l .has a t
leasi ; tlii:! : r i . & ~ C t o af2,j.r trail:: and n o t t o be t o r t u r c d .
ke,:~iil liolid can o m tiel?.. whi'vh r.l.gh1: (Oxa r i g h t s are for-
f e i - t cd iiy t h 12 coriimls sio1.1 oii" a, pm?t;icuTbar crime.
W L ~ bcr ty cn ta iL ; that pnisl imen
defcndamt co-uld have axoidcd
o f lmni nhrnent bas been
Thc emphasis i s a n li-
be imposed iidnly Xl: t h e
colzmi i t ing t h e c r i r n ~ u , 36
Witho~xt tha,-b l i m i t a t i o n , -the l i b e r t y of t h e people
would bc r e s J ~ r i c - t e d , f o r t hey would bc punished for
unavoidab le conduct . s e c u r c rnaximmn l i b e r $ y , con-
t rac- toys would a l s o p r o h i b i t pun ish ing t h e innocen t .
A s the aj.m of pn i s l iment i s t o c ~ l f o r c e p r i n c i p l e s of
j u s t i c e , c o n t r a c t o r s would r cqwi r e punishment t o be
proportion.a.1 t o t h e wroilg done, u n d e r s t m d as t h e
importance of du ty vio1z.-Lec! and i;llci c u l p a b i l i t y o f t h e
wrong d o e ~ ~ f . 3 7 Conixac tors because theywish .%s much
Preedoril m d :!,s li-h-i;le punishmeui-t as p o s s i b l e , t h e y
would a.cc:ept a p r i n c i p l e of cf :!"cctivcncss and fccomy
o f ,uunishment. Only t h e srna.lles-t punishment needed
-to ,secu;c3c: cornpliancc with d.u'l;ics should be imposed.
IJi.ill:ikc? l.;nn-t;'s vlew, i t does n o t r e q u i r e tfnat
I J r O j : l f < docrs b e mn.ished. Tlie doing of a. wrong only
rni:l.k~s pai~Lshmen-t j x rmis s ib l e . In .s t ea.d of r e q u i r i n g
th:~!; pliiishinent he p r o p o r t ~ o n a l -to t h e wrong daone, i t
rsqui rc r , t h a t punishi~lent bi: propolt't i onat e t o h-the
wrong rlon.c, Ey thc p r i n c i L ~ l . i e o f ef. .€eutivencss and
ocoboniy , it; Icnveu room fo-r cons ide ra t ion o f tihe
good. , : punishment ;11_ight do. ' T i . 1 ~ p ~ r ~ n i s ~ i b i l i t y o f
p n i s'iment .i':~.ils t o provide a rcason f o r punishing,
illlie p r i n c i p l e of' ef-fc.ctiven.ess and economy provides a.
reason .for puniskxing, -to d .c t c r wrong doing.
~ h u s weak r c t 5 i b u t i v i s m riia!k'sirs d e t e r r e m e t h e j u s t i -
fy ing p o u n d of punishment bu t 7 - e s t r i c t s i t by o the r
principle:; or j u s t i c e . For i n s t a n c e it avoids i m -
posing p.li.lishmen-t when no good w i l l r e s u l t . !be
p r i n c i 112 of p r o p o r t i o n a l i cg r e q u i r e s that both
cl-imes and punishment be ranked from t h e m o s t s e r i o u s
$0 th; l e a s t serious. But it i s n o t c l e a r how t o
rank crimes.
U t i l i t a r i a n i s m j u s t i f i e s punishment i t i f and only
i f , i t s n e t u t i l i t y i s c.t l e a s t a s g r e a t as t h a t 02
any a l t e r n a t i v e a c t t h e agent could perform i n t h c
situa-tion;i.7,8 According t o uti:l!ita.rianism, as harp-
p incss o r p leacure i s t h e i d e a of u t i l i t y , guniohment
i s : e s s e n t i a l l y e v i l , Gcnera .11~ t h e r e f o r e , as puni-
shment i t s e l f i s uiiplleasan-L, i t cannot be j u s i i f i c d
u n l e s s the prc.vention of crime w i l l avoid g r e a t e r
unha .pp in~ss , According 'LO Ben-t;harn, : t a l l punishment
i n i i I . Upon t l lc p r i n c i p l e oi u t i l i t y ,
way:; i n which punishment car, prevent g rca , te r nn-
happiness. Aznishment could bc n s ~ e c i f i c d c t c r r c ~ c e
- t h a t i s , i t can d e t e r t h e persan punished from
committing f u t u r e cr imes. iXnixhmcnt can s e r v e as
a, g e n w a l de t e r r ence - th2.t is, d e t e r o t h e r persons
f r m c o ~ m i t t i n g crimes f o r f c a r ol" be ing sin?l?l :y punished.
-FUnialmen-L can se rve t o r.cIorm a c r i m i n a l s o l141a.t he
w i l l n o t want t o commit crimes i n t h e f u t u r e . Rnni-
shment c 1.n s c rvc t o i-ncapaci. t a t e .the person punished
and thus prevent hlni frorn comriittin;; o the r crimes.
b T 1 1 ~ p r i n c i 11e of u t i l i t y imp l i e s s e v e r a l r e s t r i -
c t i o n s upon punishment;. Rmishrnent should n o t bc.
imposed i f i t would involve more unhapoiness -Lha.-t i t
would Wevent. I-(7 s h o l ~ l d n e i t h e r bc imposed il" i t
would n o t d e t e r , f o r i'nstIz.nce i f t h c harm w a s caused
by a c c i d e n t , On t h e other. hand, u t i l i t a r i a . n i s m con-
f r o n t s a, number o f obj ec-Lions too. U t i l i t a r i a n i s m , i t
has bec r~ argue&, i ~ i g h t j u s t i f y punishing of t he inno-
cen t , ( 2 i i . i~~ hare imagined var j ous s i t u a - l i o n s i n
wliich p l n i s h i r ~ g an innocr,nt 1-1zr:':m might havc more
u t i l i i y . For i n s t a n c e , sLncc I "" is del;c?r-~.enc;: t h ~ l t
ma?-tai-z, i-i; might b~ of gre:rtcr u t i l i t y t o puh i sh
a. ri~un'u wife o r c k i l d r e n for his crimes.
Again c i r i t k c s obj cc i; tlia i u t i l i t a r i a n d a r n might
j u s t i c y too severe a, punishment , It might bc
of a g r e a t e r u t i l i t y to a t t a c h 1 ~ i g ; - , cnd .$~~ ' t o
small cniue;.
TCmtls r ~ M . b u t i v c -theory of pmishrncnt involvcs
two pk inc ip l e s , F i r s t l y , j u s t i d e r e q u i r e s t h a i
:)unishmcnt bc imposed if and only if a, person ?has
cornmi t-i- ed a wrong. Secondly - that t h c punishmtnts
mus-t bc qua1 t o t h t wrong done, C r i t i c s i,-la.t
Kant s - i ; l i~ory i s a f orici of exJc:ceme r c t r i b u t i v i s r u , be-
caxse j u s t i c e r e q u i r e s t h ~ t wrens d o e r s be punishcd
and any c ~ l i s i d e r s t ion of t b c good t h a t might come Srorn
when no good w i l l r e s u l t , Arnlishment becomes t o -them
p o , k t l e s s s u f f e r i n g .
Kant l s r c t r i b u t i v i s m regacds dctorrenco as inade-
quake t h o r y of punishmen-t heda.uso it i s un ju~%if i a ,b l e .
To him i t incol-fi.s .the usi.: of a person a s a, mere means
t o -[;he good o f t he o-Lhers. Dcterrencc i s va,@c-,: and
can apply i n cases wher-. no trim!;;: had been cornmittcd,
"Ju~-L$oc and 1 3 , ~ of a S t : ~ . t e a r e confined t o dht ies
foa: wh.ich 1 r f : i k 1:tL.ion is p o s s i - b l e ' , . 4 0 The l a w of
j u s t i c r ~ i:: io ;tact catr:r.n;ir,lly ti? su.cli a way t h a t t l ~ c
f r o v usct of your w i l l i s comimti~blc. w$-Lh t h c freedom
c\.f everyone according t o tho v.c.niversa.1 la,w", 4 1
Xant :: theory therefore c n r r i c s WI. t21 it an
i m p l i c i t p r inc ip l e 0 1 t,qua.lity r e s i d i n g ir , t h e pr in-
rnbtive a r e not j u s t i f i a b l e , le , - ; is la . t iou concerns
i - t s e l f wi th ex t erm.1 c oltlclue 'L . Cocrcion t o cnf orce
d u t i e s af j u s t i c e i s j u s t i f i a b l e because i t counters
t h c i ~ " v i o l a t i o n by any perssn. The Sta. tc m3.y t h e r e f o r e
prescribe coerwive punishment t o enforce j u s t i c e .
!@a principle of e q u a l i t y i s nccl ,ssary fox' % l d impo-
s i t i o n of L~unrisl.meni; f o r , o-~herwiac , onc pcr'son would
be t r e a t e d worse than !;he o the r . NI:) onc could w i l l
such a un ive r s a1 l a w , For Kant s i n c e l a w i s u n i v e r s a l
and anyone i s supposed t o a c t i n a . ,flay that cam. make
h i s a c t un ivc ; r sa l izab lc , t h e S t a t e punishes ary non-
u n i v c r s a l i z a b l e a c t sknce i t i s u n j u s t .
Rousseau would ma.inJ~bin a seve re d e t e r r e n t m a
r e t r i b u t i v e stcmcu i n m a t t e r s of punishen-i ; . 4 s t h e
S%ate i s organic and t h e General W i l l t end ing 'cto t h e
cornrum gaud r e q u i r e s obedienbc, it impl.ies t h a t a , l l
possibli? nioasures mu8 t be bc tzkcn t o enforce comp-
l iance , Disobedience seTvss 3,s the j u s t i f y i n g ra-
tionale 01 punishment, This i s the t r u e measure
oil" true i n d i v i d u o . l i t y . Funishmen-t not only inakcs
obedience ti, t h e gc~ne ra l w i l l p o s s i b l e , b ~ t e q u a . 1 1 ~
r e s t o r e s t h t morn1 i n t e g r i t y and wholeness 09 t h t
We have a s i t werc: delved i n t o the g e n e ~ a l pro-
blems of punishment. S p e c i ~ . i c a l l y wc arc. t o s e e i n
what circurnsta,nci?s one l o s e s h i s r i g h t t o l i f e , makirzg
l i f e pena l ty a, l eg i t ima- te nrerog:itivc o f the S t a t e ,
J u s t l i k e any ph i losophi c3.3. i s s u e Schools d i f f e r i n
Therc i s one case where executiwn i s certa.in;ly
an e f f e c t i v e prevent ion nio-?.sure and neses sa ry f o r
Fagothey. This i s when dealing wi th h igh ly
organised g u r r i l l a , gang8 who arc- c l e v e r and ruthless
t o use any means t o achieve t h c i r ends. !:Whom peo-
~ l e havc been convicted of consp i racy t o murder o r
kidna.p l n g has ac Lua.1 l y bcen cormi t ted . . . i t i s
much p r c f a ~ a b l e - that t11o convicted persons should
bc exacutcd than %hat, t lmy bc deta ined ri.42 For
-fi6agothcy, c ~ p i t a . 1 punishrncnt is proper as a de to r r cnce
and 1 i ' 1 1 i tt:d t o those rtrca:: I t l l c l t producc dca th ar a re
l ~ k c l y I,:, nroduco d ~ a t h . Tn the first place t h o
vict im forfeits his l i P c and in 1,hc second place
he nmkcs himself an u n j u s t a g g r ~ , s s o r 2nd t l leref 'ore
devzlucs h i s l i f e ,
Tor n a t u r a l - l a w and n a t u r a l r i g h t s i-lieorica,
t hd 1ei;iiirnacy a £ d e a t h pena l ty stcnls Prom thciir
belief' upon the i n j u n c - t i h s af nature no t t o k i l l
and th2 r i g h t t o l i f e . llquinas n a t u r a l law tibeory
makes space f o r e i t h e r a r c t r i b u t i v i s t o r dd t c r r cnce
vicw in. ddtermining t h e app rop r i a t e m o u n t o f ?uni--
shment. ;l'i?he na.tura.1 l a w p r e s c r i b e s only t h a t wrong
doers bo punished, no t t h e anount of punishmalit
a p p r o p i a % c t o each crimcx.43 Y'hey may of' course b
adppt a r ~ t r i b y t i v i s t vicw t h a t whnt i s due t o the
wrong done, tlzcrehy jus t i I y i n g f o r i ~ l s t a n c t t h e d e a t h
pcna l ty f o r murder.
Aquinas appears t o havc adopted a form of de-
t c r r encc , He a r m e d f o r t h e p e r m i s s i b i l i t y o f t h e
dea th ponal ty by 'urn analogy with surgery i n whrtich a
p a r t 01.' t h e body i s renoved t o J r o t e c t t h e r c s t .
~~Likewise flquinas claimed, the S t a t t may ordek t h e
execution of a, p ~ s o n who i s dangerous t o t h e
coi~irnlmi ty l r . 44
:,:11t :: trong Knntian rXc ' l , r i hutivis t vi e w i s very
uu t r igh i on thc. dea th penalty. Nnis1unt:nt must
c r j u a l h e w r o q , done, If a pcr'uon cl e l i b e r a Lcly k i l l s
;)no LElcrr without jus t i f i c a . t i o n , then the only cqual
pur~ishmcnt i s death. But Jta.nt8s 2i rc,tribul;iviLsrri
u h l i k c jj'agothcy limits dc:y t h penalty t o homiciide
a l u n ~ , I n K n n t i a view, deach penal ty docs not seem
t o be an equal punishment f o r Widnapping o r rape.
L i f e imprisonmmt m:\y be th(2 only j u s t i f i a . b l e a l t e r -
native. Rut this view meets wi th a very s t r o n g
d i f f i c u l t y , because f o r most cr imes, one cannbt
i n f l i c t an equ:il lmnishmcnt. Por Knnt t h e r c f o r e ,
death pena.2ty f o r drug t r a f f i c k i n g i s g ross ly
u n j u s t i f i a b l e .
I n h i s organic concention o f t h e S t a t e , Rousseau
prcsents t h e difficulty of reconci l . l ing the Cest-
r u - c t i m o f a mznbcr with t h e h e a l t h of t hc body
-112-
p o l i t i c . Roussea.ul s a t tempt a t tllis d i f f i c u l $ , i s
t h a t , by h i s de f i ance of thc la.w, t h e of fendigg i n d i v i -
dua l ceascs t o bc a, rncmbcc of tlie body p o l i t i c and
becomes i n s t e a d an e x t e r n a l enem$. Commenting on
t h i s ROusseau s2gs (the ccascs t o be a, mealber o f i t
on viol :? . t ing i t s la.v~s , m d e-van r n a k c 2 s war on i t ;!. 45 TI10 o f fcnder r c - tu rns t o th:; Sta . tc of n a t n r c end
now i".in.ds h i m u c l 1 vis-a-vis t;hc noc ic ty he 2l.a,s just
q u i t m! struck 2, t , a siipci7cr.ti: being and s.ta.nding
t k ~ r o a t . '1'11c r u l a - t i o n o h i p i s tha , t 3.i' n a t u r a l cncmies . Tho-i~.gh i t ; i s t r u e t h a t t b c St::l.-i;c c ~1.1tzo t i n j u r e a
n'ernher, but is bound by a12. the law:; of i t s na. ture
t o p r o t e c t i t s e l f a g a i n s t all who would i n j u r e ~ r r o r
des t roy i t . I d e a l l y RouLss-e?l.~) s view i s limore
a . k b t o t h e f o r l e i t u r e of 1,ocke incl de t e r rnnce view
of Aquinas. Rut i n Locke s nc. in Acluinas, nzl&ur;al
law makes d e a t h pena l ty s p e c i f i c 3s pu-nishment f o r
c e r t a i n offences . For i n s t a n c e i n Locke one f o r -
f e i t s h i s l i f e by committing a murder. Aquinas
ee te r re r lce view al lows 11s t o draw from h i s anal-ogy.
I n Rousaeaufs h i s organic concept ion of 'rthe
S t a t e :-inJd t h e i n f f a l l i b i l i t y 01 t h e General Will-
make ni: such ce r t a . i n s p e c i f i c z t i o n . We a r e r? . ther
t o l d t h a t nil incrlivi d u a l d e c l a ~ e s w a r on \;he ;- ;society
-113 - by break ing t h e c o n t r a c t and thereby d e c l a r i g g
himself an u n j u s t aggressor . Rut i s any
s l i g h t e s t o f fence equivalen-t t o d e c l a r a t i o n of w a r ?
This e l ic i -Les a ve ry serious problem especialILy i n
:I s i b u a t i o n where tlw S t a t c i s -tile ground f o r ILaw
Rousscnu, The Child of iiature , - -= -.. . m -
( Lo nd on, r j f ~ t ' k i ~ ~ c ~ ~ ' 7mT.TK
16. &in , Thomas
R l i t i c a l Thought i n England - _.%. 1 * -- - :iTlie ' ~ t i l i -ba . r in .ns from ~e-n-arn t o M i l l ' : (London, Norgi t te .Bess 1919) P.45.
17. Wudiurn e t Spes, ;'Tlie Documen-t o f the Vatican . - -*- - -- - -, - c o u n c i i h e d . Austen Plmnery ( ~ r e l a n a , Dominican Bb. ) p.67.
28. Rousncau,
29. I>=i.-
0 I b i d . s -.,
31.
32, Ibid -= - 33. Afi:bin, H.B.
36. Bur-Lon, M.
Random house, 1980) P.33.
L ibe r ty , J u s t i c e and M o r a l s , K e 2 --rn9--T'P,iCXiTTa"n"-~TV )
Right and Reason, 2nd ed - -- -,---,-a ---- - - - *.. (u .s .A: C.U, Nos%g coinp,
oppolsitc of our ffswcet f e e l i n g s ; ; t a t h i s e f f e c t .
However, op in ions a r c d i v e r s i f i d ?nd s o t h e corlccpt
,philo:;opizically bceorncs con ten t ious i s s u e -that h a s
de f i ed an:,- un iversa , l meaning.
I n p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l d i a c o c r s ~ , t h e concept
t h a t w e wish t o engage in , i s n o t a m c t a p h p i c a l
Prcedoiri o r freedom of t he w i l l . I t i s r a t h e r , frecdlom
c u r r y ckos be, This
I soc ia l o r p o l i t i c a l d i scuss ions ; i , It i s t h c r c f o r c
a conc~a$e freedom and i s re ln . ted t o c i c t im , Wc.
cannot t he re fo re , make out any such t h i n g as f g t r u e i P
freedom i n a b s t r 2 c t . Any cla im to frecdom i s
i n v a r i a b l y a wrlaim t o a p a r t i c w a r l ibcr-ty, , ;'a, c la im
t o frcctlom f o r air in e x c r c i s e a f some na.rticu1a.r
a f a c t i v i t y "2. i r ~ c l ud f: ,
freedom of 'choght, frccdom of a.:;::ociatihn, f recdo~~z of
worship, Ireedorn b t h c use and d i s p o s a l of o n e ' s b
pmper ty , e t e .
Evcn when s o app l i ed i n i t s conc re t e qo l i t l i cn l
and s o c i a l realm, au tho r s do n o t agree wi th each o t h e r
-119 - on t h e i r sub jec t* Mortimer Adder, summarising the
r e s u l t s of rcsearch done on the sub jec t of frecdom
by well over twenty scholars a t the i l Ins t i tu te of
phflosophical r c s emchf f , d i s t i n p i s l i e d what he ca l l ed
iPth.rec bas ic conceptions of frecdomN3. '?he f i r s t i s
what hc ca l l ed :' a c i rcumstant ia l frecdorn of s e l f -
rea, l iza, t ion , . , a frecdvm which i s ~ o s s e s s e d 0 1 1 1 ~ bu
thosc men who, through acquired victuo o r wisdom,
a m able t o will o r live a,s hey ought i n conforxi ty
to the rwral laws or an i d e a l b e f i t t i n g hurmn
The t h i r d is a, f ina, tural freedon of se l f -de te r -
minaJiion . . . a freedom whk& : i s po.ss:essed by a l l
men, i n v i r t u e of a -;?otzrc:r inherent i n human nature.,
whereby a rnan.iis ab le t o change h i s na ture c r e a t i v i t y
by deciding f o r himself what he s h a l l do or s h a l l beco
becomeii. 6 Bobing i n t o what i s common with above con-
ce,ptions of freidsm, Adler wr i tes :'. . a, man i s f r e e
who has i n himself -<fie a b i l i t y o r power to make what
he does . h i s own n,ction and what he achicves h i s own
$roper ty:f. 7
Obviously, t h i s d c f i n i t i o n has i t s s jortcomings
i n t r y ing t o equate frccdom with physical power or
o r a b i l i t y . I f t h i s wcrc t o be the case, a paid 2
l aboure r who has the power t o work fcr h i s cmployer
i s no t f r ee because he cannot make the ob jec t of h i s
labour h i s own. I th ink t h a t t h i s dc f fn ib ion must
have corifuscd many incompatible i s s u e s . Kousseau
woulcl . ~ n e r g i t i c z , l l y oppose Adler t h a t a b i l i t y o r
physical power i s the c h i e f c r i t e r i o n f o r free do^,
TT:.:rbert , J . Pluller , urli f'ying the many coacrc t e
freedoms discussed and sought hy man, d e f i n e s Treedoin
a s Irtlli3 corldition of being a b l e to choose and t o ca.rry
ou-l; p ~ r p o s e : ~ , 7 According t o h i i n , h i s d e f i n i t i o n . .
im ;?ljlcs , - tlic: ibseno e o f e x t e r n a l constrain-;s ; - -the p o s s ~ s o i o n of a n a c t u a l a b i l i t y with ava i la ,b le
meam i~ what one wishes, and - thc s i g n i f i c a n t known
Power of conscious choice between s i g n i f i c a n n known
a l t e r n a t i v e s .
Isid1 B e r l i n on h i s own pa r t does n o t intend t o
propose 3, m i l l i o n and one senses i n which t h ~ concept
has been subjec ted . Re wishes ra . thcr i n ';TWO concents
of l i b e r t y f ' , t o e x m i n e t h e two comnon senses o f po l i -
t ic i : . l l i b e r t y . For Ber l in much l i k e P.11 por t r idge :
and D.D, linpha,el, some t h e o r i e s hold a, neg-I civc not ion
of fresdorn while some ho+ld a ;2osit ive coniceptnon
-121-
of freedom. For B k i i d g u p t h e h i s t o r y o f the nega t ive
conception of freedom i s t r a c e a b l e t o t h e e r a of Curo-
pean individua.lisril and l i b e r a l i s m .
3'0 -the l i b e r a l i s t s , man i s f r e e t o t h e e x t e n t
t h a t no man i n t e r f e r s wi th h i s a , c t i v i t y : ' . 8 A man i s
t h e r e f o r e f r e e when he i s n o t constra. incd or coerced.
Froedom e n t a i l s absence of c o n s t r a i n t . Accordint $0
Der! j.n, the n c f p Livc concept.ior~ o f frcudorr, tends t o
answcr this ques t ion :;what; i s the area, within. which
the aubjcc t; - a person o.1* groulp, of pcrsons - i s o r
should bu l e f t t o d o o r be
wi thout any i n t e r f e r e n c e by o the r ~ e r s o n s ' ~ . g The
negativist i d e a l s t r e s s e s : ' freedom from".
Being frpc t h e r e f o r e m a n s no t b iX ing i n t e r f e r e d
w i tli by otlLc,rs. yhc wider t h e a r e a of no11 in - t c r -
fcs-encc, t ho wider t h e freedom. :;This i s what t h e
c l a s s i c a l Engl i sh p o l i t i c a l ?h i loso phers mcant when
they used t h e wordCi .I0 The p o k t o I? cont roversy k 4.
however on t h e e x t e n t o f t h e u n r e s t r a i n t . Some arcjued
t h a t i t could be un l imi ted because i f i t were, i t
would e n t a i l a S t a t e i n which a l l men could bound .
l e $ s l y i n t e r f e r e w i t h one ano the r , and t h i s freednm
Would l ead t o s o c i a l chaos i n which mans s minimum
needs would mot be s a . t i s f i e 3 , o r e l s e t he l i b e r t i e s
of thc weak would. be suppressed bg the s t rong .
The nega. t%vists m e t h e r e f o r e r e a l l y t o c u r t a i l
freedom i n the i n t e r e s t of o-ther v a l u e s , l i k e , j u s t i c e ,
e q u a l i t y , e t c . They come t o a s s m e tha.t freedom
should be e n t a i l e d by law. But h-owever, these l i k r -
taria.izs such a:: D 1 l i l l and. Locke i n milland , cons tan t and
Tocq~xevil le i n Trance ag ree ths1 t,here should exis t ;
c o t b e l r n ~ e 3 t t . d rloB v i o l a t e d by t h e law, They be-
%he i nd iv idua l will
find ilimself in a,.: a r e a -loo n a r r o w f o r even t h a t mini-
mum :levc3 o ,men-t 0-1' his natura , l facu1'c;:i.e~.
It i s t h e i r conten-Lion t h a t socia.1 harrrlony and
of l i b e r t y f o r priva-i;e l i f e over which n e i t h e r t h e
S t a t e nor any o the r a u t h o r i t y must be a,llowed t o t r e s -
pass. It follo\vs t h a t a, f r o n t i e r must be drawn bet-
ween the a&ea of p r iva te l i f e and tha.t of public au -
t h o r i t y . But where t h i s f r o n t i e r i s t o be drawn i s
As w a s no Led e a r l i e r , one remarkable t h i n g with b I *
negat ive conception of l i b e r t y , i s t h a t i t i s
.al~qays d l lber ty from", ~ 'Thc: only freedon which d e s e m e s C
the nane i s t b , - t of w r s ~ i n g our otm good i n our own
-12'3-
waytF , I 2 The law i s only t o prevent the co l l . i s inns
o f i n d i v i d u a l r igh- ts , Wha.t :ila.ssa.le c a. l led the if
func-tion of n i g h t watch man o r t r a f f i c policema,nN.l 3
According to t he i d e a l i s t philoso :&srs whose view
wc s h a l l soon meet about; t h e pos i t ive concep-Lion 6f
l i b e r t y , t h e neg2,tive characker o f tht cornnan sense
no-bier: o f .Ere edom a s the abs ens c of c ons'train-k mee t s
some objuc t ions . They argue tha.1; .freedo,m i s one of t h c
h ighes t values of Qwnan l j - f c , ::?nil. t h e r e f o r e it must
h c sornc th ing vital 2nd I p s i - t i v e . These phi.loao;hers
t1i.i ; tha-I; si ncc self -rc:.a,lizn-ti on .pi a the u l t i n a t c
v a l u e , freedom m ~ ~ s t !mwe c lose a.ffi-ni-ty w i t h s e l f -
realization i f freedom i s t o be a va lue , They argue
IF tWt n3.n i s tyue ly f r e e , when he ha3 rca . l ized h i s
t r u e se l f i : .14 ~ c e d o m has -to be def ined in terms @f'
se l f - rea . l iza . t ion , which i s a. posi-ti-ve no t ion , n o t a
mere nega t ive one.
DID. Raphael howevor noted t h a t t h i s does not
mean t h ~ t s e l f - r e a l i z a t i o n i s t h e same a s l i b e r t y ,
N o r does the st;a,tement imply t h a t f r eedom i s of l i t t l e
aceouizt because it i s only a, mean -to an end. The f a c t b
khat i t i s a means t o a n end, ane n o t an end in---.
i t s e l f , does n o t make i t of cornpara.kive sma.11 importance.
-1244
11 i t i s a necessary means t o a v i t a . 1 value, he a.rgues
i t i s i t s e l f v i t a l .
The second ob jec t ion t o t h e nega t ive no t ion of
freedom according t o t h e i d e a . l i s t s i s t h a t i t makes
';freedom a mems of do ing what w e want; t he end wlhich
B-t seepres i s mere 1 d:si-r'dii. I5 The argwnnnt
procecds t h a t !Acre i s noth ing of va.luc. i n mere de s i r c .
A rerxl-table p h i l o s o @ w r has de f ined freedom as );the
abme~lce o f obs t ac l e s t o t h c s n t i a f a . c t i o n of dcs i res ' : . I6
It is Bc,r.irarld R ~ s s c ~ l 3 a who said s o , Hawcvef I k n o w
tha 1; nu serious philoso,phical OF s o c i a l -thinker has
defenclcd f1:ecdoin h'i t h ~ sense of absenco oi' otsi ;&,les
t o t h c s a t i s f a c t i o n of any d e s i r c .
dhzt has becn defended, i s t h e absence o f obsta.cl.es
t o -the ex2rc i se m d satisfa.cf , ion of s p e c i f i c i n t e r e s t s
and forms of a c t i v i t i e s which a r e accepted a s possess ing
s~pcial moral andsoc ia l s i g n i I i c x x c . T kind Of
a c t i o n t h a t has value i s moral a c t i o n , t he doing o f what
i s good o r r i g h t . All i n d i v i d u a l ' s d e s i r e s o f t e n €30
a g a i n s t t h i s . LiWeedom t o do as one l i k e i s no l i b e r t y
but l i cence . 'This e x a c t l y was what Hobbes, th-e con-
sdrv;-bives and t h e react iona,ry th inkers a.rgue a g a i n s t .
They niaintain th3.t if mrn were t o b c . prcventcd
des t roy ing one another and making somia.1 l i f e a jungle
o r wi lderness , g ~ e a t e r safeguards must b e i n t i t u t e d
t o keen them t n placcjs. The wished t h e r e f o r e t o i
i nc rease -the a r e a of cen t ra l . i se6 cor l t rol n,nd decrease
t h a t o f t h c individua.1-.
Nill. stmrls out i~ h i s t o r y a s a celebra , ted de-
fender of t h i s kind of l i b e r t y . He dec la res t i ia t
unless inen a re l e f t t o liT7e 3,s they wish ['in the path
which merely concerns themselves i : I ' 7 , s c i v i l i z a t i o n
cannr-: t udvmce, t h c t r u t h w i l l n o t , for lo ,ck o f a, f r e e
mixket i n i i icau corxe t o I..ig??t, t h e r e will. be rho scope
for spun-t3nei.-ty , ~l;cniua , f o r mental ensrgy-, @or inoral
u r I Socic t y a.ccorPi:ng -to him w.il.1 be cmslled
by th; weight oi' " c o l l e c t i v e inediocrlityi;. Menf s ten-
ciency t o couforrnity w i l l breed a2nl.y itwhi thered c :ips-
c i t i e s : ; :'pinched 2nd hidebov.nd~~ :~crampcd and warped;:
Some ob jec t ions may howevcr be ncjted concerning
t h i s negati.vcs conception of l i b e r - t y a s defended ly
J . S 9 M i l l . IL the f i r s t lace, a l l coercion i s , i in
so f a x a s i t f r u s i r a t e s human d e s i r e s which a r e bad
a s such, al though i t may have t o bc appl ied t o prevent b
o the r , g r e a t e r e v i l s , while non-interference the oppo-
s i t e of coerc ion , i s good a s such a.lthough, i t i s no t
t h e only goodtF. I3 Tn h i s own mind, t h c r c f o r e , the
-126-
essence of law i s e v i l and only has t o be t o l e r a t e d a s
a r e g r e t t a b l e e v i l ,
We now cons ider the views of those who considcr
fruedom 8,s a, pos i t ive concept. The pos i t ive conception
of freedom implies a kind of r c s t r i c t i o n on the par t
of the ind iv idua l , s o t h a t i n i t s e l f , freedom has a
va.lue. reedom om i s no t seen as l iuence , i t sees roa-
t r i c t i o n m necessary and not i n t r i n s i c a l l y bad.
?or iuany of' thosc who h o l d the pos i t ive concepthon
o f fxooilorn, i t w a s r e l a . t i v e l y e a s y $ t c p to d i s t i n -
&=is11 wi~Ll-Lin. t h e individual^ , a r;higlicr" s e l f a s op,posed
to a ; ' l ;~wer '~ s e l f . Some w r i t e r s come t o i d e n t i f y M
t h i s :;higher': o r ; ' r e a l " s c l f as thc Sta.te o r Socie$y.
;;Something wider than the i n d i v i d u a l , a s a s o c i a l %b
iiwhole'i, of which the ind iv idua l , a s i s an element;
o r aspec-t, a t r i b e , a r ace . . . a Stntet ' .20 In t h i s
s i t u a t i d n , a man's , ~ o s i t i v e freedom came to be idec-
t i f i e d no t with what the . . indiv idual ih f a c t wanted
but with what he would want i f he were under the
con t ro l of h i s higher s e i f ' ~ , 2 1
From t h i s point of view, freedom becomes syno-
nymous with obedience t o the Will of the s o c i e t y can-
s idcred a s an organis~n. The S t a t e i s now i d e n t i f i e d
as being the t r u e s e l f which, by iriiposing i t s (-
-127 - c o l l e c t i v e o r organic s i n g l e w i l l upon thc members
achieves i t s own, and t h e r e f o ~ e t h e i r higher freedom.
Within t h i s framework, i t becomes poss ib le t o a.rgtae
t h a t some may have the r i g h t t o i n t e r f e r e and d i r e c t
the l i v e s of o thers with the aim of inc reas ing t h e i r
posi t ivu freedom by ms.king them do what -their higher
se lves would really want -Lo do if those indiwfdua .1~
on1.y lmew better, T l x ( I ~ l r c r ~ d e r s of t h i s kind of f r e e -
darn tend t o answer t h c q u e u tion rfwh:~t, o r who, i s the
source 01 con t ro l o r i n t c r f e r u n c ~ t h a t d m determine
some m e t o do o r be, t h i s r a t h e r than tha t ; : . 2 1
This concept of frecdonl drslws an absolu te idea
of i d e n t i f i a b i l i t y with -the S t a t e , as i n the c m e of
African comlnunication, The ind iv idua l it i s thought
has no authent ic exis tence o.ui;side t h e Sts, tc. The
i nd iv idua l does not e x i s t a s an 1' unique i n i t s e l f
but always a s i n 'we'. So then t h i , i nd iv idua l
i s not f r e e outs ide the realrn of thc S t a t e .
This idea of freedom has i t s own shortcomings
too and P,H. a r t r i d g e points out t lmt some dangors
a r i s e from the use o f organic meta.phors t o j u s t i f y
coercion of some men by o thers i n ordcr to r a i s e them
. to a higher l e v e l of freedom. 1-lowcver a.rguing f o r
the p l a u s i b i l i t y o f such use , hc says tha.t tcwha.t ,
We have as i t were come t o the eo~sumaf ion off
what w e s-tar-Led concerning Rou:;seauts. phi loso&y. It i s the
view b f freedom o f l iber tgr as t n e essence o f human ex i s t ence , I ,
libarty 3,s rfihothu e x i s t e n t i a l i s t imtergr i . ty 05 the i indivi-
dual. monl t h i s perspec t ive , r~ousseau s o far argues w i t h
M i l l tha t 1-iberty i s an esi ient ia , l quality o f human life,
It is -the c o n d i t i o n o f onr being o u r s c l - ~ e s , o f s e l f -
rnrstery n.nd no d o u h t Rousscuu sought in the po l i t i ca3
stai ,e t o !:.-,kc ruan as free as b e f o r e ,
1x1 e f f e ~ t ~ t h e r e f o r e , w i t h Rousseau t h e horizon OE
what. today has become a common fea-turc i n world
p o l i t i c s has been opelied. It i s however deba tab le
whether Rows eau proxima. t e l y or remotely pioneered t h e
whole world clamour fa , r hman r i g h t s . m a , g i c a l l y
enough, t h e same l i b c r t y i s decr ied both by democ-eats
and despots .
Tlze world i l s e l f has over -the c e n t u r i e s undergone
w a t d e d s of cor i t rovers ics andhas j u s t l i k e any o ther
phi loso9hical concept remained problematic. In its
comoni sensc exp1a.m~-tion, B t m a n s n !!free hur rah i f
experience, Ihi losophers have u s u a l l y incant the very
-128-
gives such p l a u s i b i l i t y as i t has t o t h i s k i n d of
language, i s t h a t we recognise - that it i s possible ,
and a t t imes j u s t i f i a b l e , t o coerce men i n t h e name
of some goa l s , s a y j u s t i c e o r publ ic heali;h;:.22
Rousseau i n his organic concept ion of S t a t e , sub-
sc r ibed t o t h e p s i t i v e conception of freedom , He
recogniaed thc danger o f enclorsir~g thc nega t ive
conception o f f reedom 01 t h e State 01 na:Lure i n t h e
S t a t e 01 org:?nisci~ s o c i e t y . Ho therefore d e c l a r e d
tha l tbf? nn t u r a l n z m i s n u t mora7. Though l i b e r t y can-
XZOttbc said t o be a. - t o t a l nega,t ive conceyt ion, i n t h e
acnse of to ta .1 absence o f restraint what we a r e a p t
t o suggcst i s a maximum ef f~c t i -c ic . freedom, which on
the o t h e r hand i s n o t a t o t a l p o s i t i v e coilzeption
of freedom, but a mean between t h e two.
ED1itica.l o r s o c i a l frcedom m e s u p :asses t h e e x i s -
Sta-te t h t ~ Q t a i c being or.;anic, is the rcalm of com-
p l e t e freedom where t h e i n d i v i d u a l r e a l i z e s t h e f u l l -
ness of h i s being. Howevcr it i s another -thing t o
t a l k tibout the r e a l i s a b i l i i y of t h a t f 'ul lncss or" being.
It i s p e r t i n k n t t o pose the fol lowing q u e s t i o n s ,
prosumablly to Rousseau. ghat a c t u a l l y d o e s he mean
by s e l f - r c n l i z a t i ~ n ? Does h i s model o r it al low
-129 - the s u b j e c t inush conscious i n d i v i d u a l i t y t o r e a l i z e
h&s icleals ? I n our own idea, of freedam we have de-
cided i-o keep a, mean, s o t h a t wliile a.llowir,,- f o r thc
per l l i i s ib i l i ty o i c o n s t r a j ~ i t , we 3 l s o r e se rve c o m
a r e - s o C automomy f a r t l ~ i n d i v i d u a l t o e x e r c i s e h i s
in ixia t i -v , : over what, he i s t o d o o r bc.
11' we fol1.o~ vi rgorouuly -kho logic o f Roussea.uts
o rgon jc St::te, o u r conclusion i s o b v i m s , , In 3.r: ~mch.
a s we c m n o t oubscribo t o t h e total n e g ~ l t i v c con-
ceptirm O i i'recdorn bcclause b t s rccurlciiuy L O aua rc ly ,
t o be l'~:cc must includ:, tlsc p o s s i b i l i t y of a,llowin(:
tk s u b j e c t s t o make r n e a n i n g l ~ l c l ~ o i c e s i f such a, claim
t o s e l f - r e a l i z a t i o n must worth i t . freedom c -n imt be
ei t lzcr ind iv idua l i sm proposed by t h e l ibera .1 ncg? Live
concep-t;ioii. It caanot- iequally he t l ~ c extreme positiivc
senso 01 it t h a t provides reasons for despotism.
%ien we s&pea,k o f being frc.c o r e la im freetiom, it rm
must n o t only f r e l c r t o tlzc absenise of coerc inn
and r e s t r a i n t imposed by o the r s . It also r e f e r s to
t h a t oh beha l f of which freedom i s be inz claimed - what we arc claiming freedom ,for.
Taken on its f n , c e va lue , we ca,n s a y t h a t wh'9.t
Rousseau a . f f i r n s i n p r i n c i p l e , he denies i n p rac t i ce .
C;3nclusively, R o u s s e a u ~ s freedom docs notu.a.ccord
much r c s p e c t t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l i d e a l s . H i s super des-
po t i c general w i l l , h i s i a c a of frcedom a.s unques-
t iona,ble cornf orrnity t o thc Genera.1 ' d i l l , h i s mora,l
pos i t iv i sm ?nr? his idea, of : 'being forced t o be f r e e it
as a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l method of brint; ing about t h e e x i s -
tence of % h ~ Gencral W i l l , d i s a l low t h i s ,
It w i l l however be g r o s s l y unfs . i r t o condemn
Houssea.u without q u a , h s since Srceclorn nceds some
a u c r i f i c c a . Rousseauts n i c r i t s stem f r o m his h i s t o -
r i c a l i inpor tmcu . His thoory serves as t h e basis for
d m o c r : c y and the j u s t i r i c a , t i o n of r e v o l u t i h n s against
a r b i t r a r y r u l e . Sicwick point;:3 out; that h i s revolu-
t i ona ry doc lx ine r e s t s on t h r e e p r i n c i p l e s . That men
a rc by n a t u r e f r e e axed equa l , t h a t t h c r i g h t s o f govern-
ment must be based on some pact freely entered inla
by t h c s e equal and indewnden t ~ d i v i d u a , l s and t h a t
t h e n a t u r e of t h e compact is such t h a t t he i n d i v i d u a l
becomes p a r t of t h e soverc ign[ f ,23 These a r e f a c t s
h i t h e r t o ignored by the divine r i g h t t h e o r i s t s .
These po in ts s t imu la t ed by R0ussea.u .;.re a l l
s t r q ~ , c tha,-t w i l l and noJi. fo rce i s the b a s i s o f t h e
St::~te, and. t h a t government depends on t h o c,onsent o f
t h e goveiined. On t h e o t h c r hand, Rousseau was scan-
r c e l y aware o f t h l d f a c t t h a t u n r e s t r i c t e d l7ower o f &he
gene ra l wil l . might r e s u l t i n rn abso lu t i sm and h i s
thz-ory r e a l l y gave inpe tus t o mmy obnoxious despotisnis
a l l aver t h e world, Roussca ,~ a s a person g i v e h
his nat iona l i sm and p ~ t r i o t i s m nov~r willcd t l ic ne-
gat ive e f f c c t s of his philosophy 011 -Lhc i n d i v i d u a l .
B u t w e sha l l n o t forge-t -the, f : x t t h a t far Xrorn ma-
l i z i n g his t r u e sclf, t h e i n d i v i d u a l forgocs his i 'rce-
dom i n Roussca,u~s S t a t e . So i f w e s a y t h a t Rousseau
f a l l s short of his enteP'ps'ise, i t i s only a. problem
o f judgement by our own s t anda rds , TVany fqc'cors
may have j u s t i f i e d what Rousseau 'wrote in his days.
I, Raphael, D.D. Problems of I b l i t i w l Xhilmoph , noi?f'on; ~ a c r n i llsi'm8' J ~ - 1 1 3
3. Adler, M.J. frFrecdam a,s Na. tu r r : l , acquired and ci rcumstant ia . l i i . ~G.$~it P.68.
12. Ibid
14. D.D. Ra.phs.el
154 Ib id v- u
17, B e r l i n
Issues of l?reudomi- Bradoxes -- -- =z a----..--u - -.---- Land B o r n ~ s e 3 - TN.C IIa.rper TT60bq - Ti'57',
Op. C i t . P.237. , -=
19. Ibid - 20. Plull-er, H.J. *r- O & C i t . t _St* -. P.78.
24. Appadoryi, A. - The Substance o f I o l i t i c s , I I t ;~hh~m-$~B6~~~a~~9~XXfOo$r~6"6"
Rousseau, J.J T11e Socia.1 Contract and Discourses, ~ s - T y Y ' - ~ : ~ o W - ~ G I T " e " ~ ~ w ,
Eoche, K.F, Rousseau" Sto ic and Romantic L - --=.-- --- ----- 9 London; ~ e t h e n & To. Ltd. 1974.
Aquinas, T. ----a Summa ---- ..-- Theolo i c a , V o l , 7, Washbourn, I&.
Bayles, PI. R i e - - J - - - - Conduc t Theories and A"5plication New ~ o r K - ~ ~ - ' c ,z,,.9 Random House 1982.
Bentham, J . Collected Works Vols. I & I1 - A=-" ---- L cd. John Bowing, Edinburgh, 1984.
Brinton, C. I O l i t i c a l ----- . .- Ideas of theee&fg3.isJi omanticists-p London, Ox ord, L-,,-,
Universi ty Press, 1926.
1 2 . C a r r i e , E.F.
I Coplcston, F.
14. Chiodi, P.
15. D m i s o n , F e
16. Donalason, T,
17, Dupre, H.K.
18. E r i c Josephson
19. Panon Fran tz ,
20. Findly, J . N ,
21. Pagothey, A.
22 , Hegel, G.1d.F.
b
24, Har r i s , C.E.
25. Higgins, T.J.
Morals and E o l i t i c s London, --- -9-
Oxford Un ive r s i ty Press, 1935.
A His tory o f Rilosoph$:-: Bl .--=-
Vo&. v i , Marylan, The Newman
S a t r e and Marxism Susscx, --> - - 9 Harves te r Press, 1978.
B l i t i c a l --- Thou l-st i n Enjyland London, Norga t h I ~ - ~ ' ' ~ '
Issucs i n lvIoral I h i l o s o m , r -- - New Y ~ ~ ~ - T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ % - = H ~ ~ ~ - I % c >Fj 8 6 . The Concc t of Al iena t ion i n & X < ~ a & a ~ ; ~ r n g t ~ ~ . I , . --... C ceorgtowru nivers . i ty press , 1980.
M a n a lone : hl iena . t ion i n Modern .-- U" --I-CsO - S o c i c t t 9 New York, Elell a b . W p Y n y 3 9 6 2.
The Wretched of the EAr th - - --PI --d N i g e r ~ a . , Nok Rtb. Enugu, 1980.
Right and Reason, 2ed I l l i n i s _fl---- - Mosby ~ o m c 1 9 5 8 .
Thc - % c w f t h e Mind -- --. -.-- ~- trams. by S l r Jarncs, B. B a l l i e , New ~ o r k , Harper 1967.
Biilosophy of Right t r a n s . by - -- -- ------ --2 T.M. I h o x , London, Oxford Press
26, Hook Sidney,
27. Kant Immanuel,
30, M i l l s , J .S .
31. Nakhnikian , G.
32. Ni sbe t .
33. B i n e Thomas
34. B i n e Thomas
35. Ross, D.W.
37. S a r t r e , J .p .
C r i t i q u e of ,P rac t i ca . l Reason, -- 0- Y--SI-- I
New York, A l i b e r a l ar ts ,press, 1956.
Hc&ll,'_s *RI i t i c a . 1 l h i l o s o p h y , ELJ YO^%^ -&- therTon p r e s s , . 1970.
Ea.rl T Writin& t r a n s . by T.B. --+---- Uo t ,morc, Toronto , McGraw-Hill hook, 1964.
. Ut i l i t a r i an i sm _ _ A _-____ - w i t h C r i t i c a l 4.4. ..-- - -
Essa~s, I n d i a n a p o l i s , Bobbs- ". - r- ~ e r r i f l IWI.
ih I n t r o d u c t i o n t o J h i l s o s o .NG -='O~~~LSF~TT~'O~-~:XT.%& 3 . The S o c i a l I h i l o s o ~ e r s N e w
L .-. -. Y u r ~ r ~ r ~ a ~ i ~ n ~ ~ ? qu'~G7' p r e ss , 1983.
Thc A e o f Reason London, rr --=$ *.-- ~ f o r p y o s s ~ &
R i - h t s of Man, ed 'y H. C o l l i n s T5rmY=-, &nguim. 1969.
The R i ~ h t and Good London, v- - A - -7- --. 9
m a r i n d o n press 1930.
W i l o s o & y : His- tor and Roblems , -a- .- - - Toronto ~cGra.w-1fi.11 -YT- n c , m 7 - F - .
40, St rauss , 11. Natural Ri hts and H i s t o r ,, -- -*-a- ~ T i m o i s . . ++--- nivemtv ~d c s o " - press 1953.
41. Josephe Margo l i s , D i c t a t o r s h i p , I t s H i s t o r y and Theory, New Light on the B19Cical thought o f Rousseau
V c i e n c e Quartelyrf Vol. 66 London 1351.
Ehilosophy of 19u?ishment i ' Intcrna t i o n a . 1 J ournal o f Rnilosophyfr New York I96
For C a p i t a l Bmishment i t F o ~ t a i n Magazilio I k o t - 2 ,
Ekpcne. 1981.
