The social contract is one of the most influential concepts in political philosophy. Rooted in the works of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, this theory posits that individuals consent, either explicitly or implicitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to an authority in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. This Mantra 101 blog post will delve into the foundational theories, variations, and the modern relevance of the social contract.

The Hobbesian Social Contract:

In Leviathan, Hobbes described the state of nature as a pre-political condition characterized by a war of “every man against every man,” where life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” To escape this chaos, individuals collectively agreed to form a social contract, establishing a sovereign authority to impose order and protect them from the inherent violence of the state of nature. This agreement was not between individuals and the sovereign but rather among the individuals themselves, who collectively authorized the sovereign’s absolute power. Hobbes’ version often justifies a strong, centralized authority, sometimes bordering on authoritarianism, as a necessary measure to maintain peace and prevent civil war. The sovereign, or Leviathan, was granted almost unlimited authority to enforce peace and prevent a return to the state of nature. Hobbes’ theory justifies absolute monarchy or authoritarian regimes where the ruler’s primary role is to ensure the safety and stability of the state. Hobbes underscores the necessity of a powerful government to avoid the chaos of the state of nature but also raises concerns about the potential for tyranny and abuse of power.

The Lockean Social Contract:

Locke’s view of the state of nature was more optimistic than Hobbes’. He believed that individuals were generally rational and capable of coexisting peacefully. As a sidenote, interestingly, the differences in Locke’s and Hobbes’ social contracts were the time period that they grew up in. Hobbes, living during the bloody English Civil War, believed in the worst in people, most likely due to the atrocities he witnessed during this conflict. His experiences led him to believe that a strong, centralized authority was necessary to prevent the descent into anarchy and maintain peace and order. Locke, on the other hand, lived during the glorious revolution, a relatively bloodless coup. The revolution was characterized by the assertion of parliamentary power and the protection of individual rights, in stark contrast to the absolute monarchy Hobbes advocated. Locke’s experiences shaped his optimistic view of human nature and his advocacy for a government that derives its authority from the consent of the governed and is accountable to the people. In Locke’s state, people enjoyed natural rights to life, liberty, and property, which were inherent and inalienable.

Rousseau’s Social Contract:

Rousseau’s state of nature depicted humans as free, equal, and living a simple life in harmony with nature, without the corrupting influence of society and civilization. He believed that humans were inherently good but became corrupted by social institutions and the development of private property, proposing a social contract aimed at restoring freedom and equality by creating a political community governed by the “general will,” which represents the collective interests of the people. The general will is not simply the sum of individual wills but rather the common good that transcends individual interests. Citizens, in submitting to the general will, achieve true freedom, as they are obeying laws they have prescribed for themselves. Rousseau’s ideas support a form of direct democracy where active civic participation is crucial for the legitimacy of laws and government. His emphasis on collective sovereignty and the general will has influenced modern democratic and socialist thought, advocating for a more participatory and egalitarian political system.