Summary Of The Book "The Social Contract" - By Jean-Jacques Rousseau

 Key concepts in this book:

1. Citizens must freely consent to live in a state for it to be legal.
2. The rule of law is the only way for people to attain their full humanity.
3. The law should reflect the overall will of the people in a legitimate state.
4. The aristocracy has the biggest advantages of the three systems of government.
5. The most reliable means to transmit the general will is through popular assemblies.
6. By establishing a state religion, states can instil civic values in their citizens.

What am I getting out of it? Participate in direct democracy and become more politically involved.

Since Rousseau's first publication of The Social Contract in 1762, the world has altered dramatically. For one thing, monarchies that once ruled Europe have mostly been replaced by democratic governments elected by public vote.

At first look, we could think that modern Western nation-states have mostly realised Rousseau's ideal of political authority being founded on popular will.

But, before we congratulate ourselves on gaining democracy, let me point out one major flaw: our laws are made by representatives, not the people.

But, before we congratulate ourselves on gaining democracy, let me point out one major flaw: our laws are made by representatives, not the people.

In truth, the vast majority of people do not participate actively in the political processes that influence their lives today. The majority of individuals are uninterested. Sure, we vote every now and then, and we frequently express our displeasure with the decisions made by our so-called representatives. However, many people prefer comfort to self-determination in the end. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and do nothing.

• You'll learn why people only became completely human at the beginning of civilization.
• Why Rousseau was so nostalgic for the early Roman Republic.
• What he wrote about Christianity that caused The Social Contract to be banned upon its initial publication in this summary.

1. Citizens must freely consent to live in a state for it to be legal.

The Social Contract is one of the few works that begins with a memorable statement.

"Man is born free, but he is bound everywhere."

Rousseau had just criticised the Europe of his time. The "chains" he refers to are the regulations and traditions that society imposes on people, limiting their freedom.

Restriction of human liberty may now be justifiable if it results in people receiving some advantage from society. However, as is all too often the case, laws function primarily to strengthen the position of the wealthy and powerful at the expense of everyone else.

So, from the perspective of the average person, society may appear to be a very bad deal. When Rousseau set out to create The Social Contract, he had this problem in mind. What he wanted to know was: what gives rulers the authority to limit their citizens' freedom? Or, to put it another way, when is it worthwhile for the ruled to live in society?

The main point here is that states can only be legitimate if inhabitants freely consent to live in them.

The first alternative Rousseau considers in his attempt to establish what makes political authority legitimate is that rulers are simply superior to their subjects by nature. He compares the link between rulers and subjects to the bond between parents and children. Because their children are more mature and capable, parents have legal influence over them.

Rousseau quickly dismisses the analogy between rulers and parents, not least because there have been many miserably inept rulers throughout history. He reminds out that political powers do not emerge spontaneously from nature. They rise to the top by doing overt acts of power.

As a result, Rousseau investigates whether rulers are legitimate because they are the most powerful and hence the most capable of subduing a population in the second option.

Rousseau, once again, dismisses the notion that power alone can establish legitimacy. Instead, he contends that in order for a political organisation to be legitimate, citizens must acknowledge its value and willingly submit to it. People who obey rulers simply because they are forced to do so don't have a choice in the matter and hence lack the freedom to submit willingly.

Finally, Rousseau concludes that for a state to be legitimate, its citizens must freely submit to it. As a result, the concept of the social contract emerges. A legitimate state is founded when a group of individuals come together and agree to work together for their mutual benefit.

People accept limitations on their freedom as part of the social contract in exchange for better peace, security, and wealth than they would otherwise have.

2. The rule of law is the only way for people to attain their full humanity.

Prior to engaging in a social contract, humans lived in what Rousseau refers to as the "state of nature." This is the time period prior to the establishment of the rule of law.

Rousseau maintained that humans have "natural freedom" in the natural world. Humans were free to act on any instinct, desire, or temptation that came their way because they had no limitations on their activities.

However, once we signed the social contract, we gave up a lot of our natural freedom in exchange for the advantages of living in a group. We traded our natural liberty for civil liberty. Sure, we couldn't do anything we wanted. However, society's safety and monetary comfort provide us with the freedom to pursue larger ambitions and greater kinds of living.

When we first came under the rule of law, something else crucial happened. Humans were no longer free to act on every instinct and desire that came to mind; instead, they were compelled to exercise self-control and consider the repercussions of their actions for the sake of others. In effect, the establishment of law represents the first moment that humans became intellectual and moral beings.

The main point here is that humans can only fully realise their humanity under the rule of law.

As a result of living in a society, one develops a split consciousness.

On the one hand, we continue to think of ourselves as individuals with particular needs and interests, just as we did in the wild. On the other hand, we also perceive ourselves as social beings with responsibilities to others and to society's common good. These two aspects of our experience are far from in sync all of the time.

Consider how you felt the last time you had to pay your taxes to understand this. You may have been disappointed to see your earnings decrease if you had a personal interest in not handing over your money. As a citizen who wants to live in a safe and orderly community, you may have consoled yourself by deciding that, sure, paying taxes is undoubtedly the proper thing to do for the good of society.

Because everyone in society has the same commitment to the common good, Rousseau claims that society has its own will, which he refers to as the general will. As a result, he portrays society as a collective person and declares it to be the sovereign.

3. The law should reflect the overall will of the people in a legitimate state.

Before Rousseau caught hold of the word "sovereign," it already had a connotation. Of course, in everyday usage, the term "sovereign" refers to any monarch who has absolute power over a population. This would traditionally be a king or queen.

Rousseau now maintains that the sovereign has ultimate authority, but he rejects the notion that sovereignty may be exercised by a single person or group of people. Instead, he contends that the social contract, which is also a manifestation of the people's will, is the ultimate source of authority in society.

Rousseau effectively turned the concept of sovereignty on its head in this way. The king is no longer in charge of the people; instead, the people are in charge of the king.

The main point here is that in a legitimate state, the law should reflect the people's general will.

So, what does it mean for the people to have sovereign authority over their country?

It simply implies that the people have the freedom to choose the laws that govern them.

All laws would be agreed to by all citizens in an ideal state because they would all agree that it is in their best interests to live under them. Laws that protect human rights and liberties, for example, are valid because we all agree that they benefit everyone.

The laws in an ideal state would be a written record of all that the people collectively feel is good. The community is essentially declaring and reinforcing its commitment to the collective good by establishing laws.

Rousseau declares all lawful states to be republican since every state ruled by the people is a republic.

That said, at this moment, we're only discussing the legislative side of government, i.e., how laws are enacted. The government's actual institution, which is in charge of carrying out the day-to-day job of enforcing the law, can take nearly any shape. That means, according to Rousseau, even a monarchy can be republican if the king just exercises the people's will.

While a monarchy is definitely not the greatest form of administration for a republic, Rousseau emphasises the benefits of separating the sovereign and the government. As a result, the persons who administer the legislation are not the same people who make the law, and any potential conflicts of interest are avoided.

4. The aristocracy has the biggest advantages of the three systems of government.

There are many different ways to operate a government, but they all fall into one of three categories: democracy, aristocracy, or monarchy.

On a scale of one to three, these three categories exist. A democratic government is one in which all or the majority of citizens participate in the implementation of the law. It's an aristocratic government when only a small percentage of the population is involved. We have a monarchy when a single individual has complete executive power. In practice, most governments have a mixture of government structures, with distinct state arms structured in various ways.

The essential point here is that aristocracy has the most advantages of the three systems of government.

Let us begin with democracy. It's worth noting that when Rousseau used the term "democracy," he didn't mean it in the modern sense. He was sincerely dedicated to a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. So, when he critiques democracy, he was referring to a system in which all citizens are actively participating in running the government.

He believes that such a system would be foolish for no other reason than that running such a vast bureaucracy would be extremely impracticable and inefficient. Consider what it would be like if the government employed every citizen of your country. As a result, he believed that democracy could only succeed in relatively small states.

The next topic is monarchy, which Rousseau, predictably, had qualms about. He admits that monarchy is very efficient since all power is concentrated in the hands of a single person. This efficiency, on the other hand, is what makes monarchs so hazardous if the monarch is corrupt, cruel, or just plain inept.

Monarchies also have a succession problem. When monarchs die, a power vacuum can emerge, threatening to plunge governments into civil war as rival parties seek the throne. This was an issue that plagued the late Roman Empire far too often. Rousseau also dismisses monarchy for similar reasons.

Finally, we have an aristocracy, which is Rousseau's best-case situation. While the word aristocracy may have a bad connotation to our modern ears, when we remember that its precise definition is "ruling by the best," it becomes less contentious.

Of course, the ruling elite isn't usually the best qualified or skilled for the job. However, according to Rousseau, an aristocracy elected on the basis of merit is still the most reliable way of ensuring that competent leaders are in charge.

5. The most reliable means to transmit the general will is through popular assemblies.

Whatever system of governance a state establishes, it is ultimately responsible to the sovereign—the people. The sovereign sets the law that will be implemented by the government. In turn, the government ensures that the sovereign keeps his end of the deal by ensuring that citizens follow the law. As a result, by separating and balancing power, the sovereign and the government complement one another.

However, in fact, this balance resembles a rivalry rather than a cordial collaboration. The government, in particular, is constantly in danger of failing to fulfil its obligations to the people. After all, government officials are only human, and there is always the desire to utilise their positions of authority for personal advantage. The social compact would be nullified, and people would no longer be freely consenting citizens if this happened.

That is why it is critical that the people examine their government on a regular basis to guarantee that it is still acting in the public interest. According to Rousseau, the best way to achieve this is for citizens to gather in democratic assemblies on a regular basis.

The main point is that popular assemblies are the most reliable means of communicating the general will.

Rousseau is essentially a proponent of direct democracy, while not using the term. People express their collective will by congregating in a public space and collectively voicing their concerns.

The people can propose, discuss, and vote on new laws while they are gathered. They can also utilise the opportunity to evaluate the government's performance and legitimacy.

It may seem unrealistic to expect all of a nation's residents to congregate in one location now, but as Rousseau is quick to point out, such gatherings have occurred in the past. He admired the Roman Republic in particular, which was able to gather hundreds of thousands of individuals to attend public assemblies virtually every week in its early years.

These assemblies were known as comitia, and they essentially served as Rome's sovereign body, letting citizens vote on laws.

The comitia were much than merely administrative exercises; they were the republic's throbbing heart. The comitia promoted the spirit of civic virtue and participation that is so important to the social contract's success by behaving like one.

6. By establishing a state religion, states can instil civic values in their citizens.

So far, we've discussed civic virtues. What exactly are they?

All of the beneficial characteristics and practises that make someone a good citizen are referred to as civic virtues. We're talking about things like voting, following the law, and simply caring for your community's life and health.

When civic qualities deteriorate in a culture, it poses serious threats to the social body's cohesiveness and integrity. People who have lost their sense of social responsibility are more likely to put their own interests ahead of the general good. The state will thereafter be divided into political factions, each pushing its own agenda.

As a result, promoting civic virtues is in the state's best interests. Rousseau believed that the best way to achieve this was to reinstate the concept of state-sponsored religion, which was controversial at the time.

The important idea here is that states should develop a state religion to instil civic qualities in citizens.

Rousseau observes that religion was virtually always linked to a national region in most ancient societies. To the exclusion of all others, each ancient culture had its own religion and pantheon of gods who guarded and protected them.

Religion revealed the origins of these civilizations' nations and offered the rituals and customs that bound them together. Religion and national identity were inextricably linked.

When Christianity came along, though, everything changed. Christianity was an evangelical religion that was unaffiliated with any state. It had a heterogeneous membership from the beginning, with no ethnic or cultural ties binding all Christians together.

As a result of the advent of Christianity, it became possible to separate religion and state. This would eventually lead to an uneasy power divide in Christian states, with the church establishing its own set of rules and ideals in rivalry with those of the state.

As a result, Rousseau argued, the Christian church tended to undermine civic qualities. He also believed that Christianity's emphasis on purely spiritual matters encouraged apathy toward public issues.

This is how Rousseau comes to the conclusion that state-sponsored religion needs to be revitalised. To be clear, he believed that people should be allowed to believe whatever they wanted as long as their beliefs did not disrupt societal order. However, he advocated that citizens be taught a civil religion based on a few basic dogmas in order to motivate them to be better citizens.

These dogmas include beliefs in the supremacy of the law and the constitution, as well as high regard for liberty and equality. Essentially, the state should become a national religion.

The message to be gleaned from these blinks is that the only legitimate state is one that enacts the people's will. Legitimacy can only be obtained when citizens willingly agree to live under a political system for the mutual benefit of all.

While many alternative systems of governance have the ability to exercise the popular will and hence be legitimate, Rousseau proposes a formula for an ideal state that he believes will be stable and long-lasting. His ideal state is essentially a republic in which citizens participate actively in democratic assemblies to choose the laws. An aristocratic government led by a select group of qualified bureaucrats would then put the laws into effect.

Actionable advice: Participate in democratic activities to keep your government accountable.

Of fact, nations have become far larger since Rousseau's time, and expecting entire populations to gather in a public location is clearly impossible. Local government, on the other hand, is a very different beast, and you may discover that you have more opportunity to influence the laws of your city or province than the laws of your country as a whole. Your regional authority most likely already hosts local assemblies and gatherings that you may attend. If that doesn't appeal to you, there are plenty of political action groups and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) looking for volunteers to assist with their global campaigns.

#books #bookstagram #book #booklover #reading #bookworm #bookstagrammer #read #bookish #booknerd #bookaddict #booksofinstagram #bibliophile #love #instabook #bookshelf #bookaholic #booksbooksbooks #readersofinstagram #libros #reader #bookphotography #booklove #b #art #author #instabooks #literature #libri #bhfyp

#writer #bookcommunity #bookblogger #quotes #bookreview #library #livros #writing #novel #poetry #writersofinstagram #igreads #libro #readingtime #bookstore #bookclub #romance #goodreads #instagood #fantasy #literatura #instagram #fiction #photography #authorsofinstagram #a #bookobsessed #kindle #life #leggere