Rousseau's "social contract": contracting ahead of its time?

Abstract

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, born in Geneva in 1712, had an important influence on political philosophy in the 18th century and since, in particular through his book The contract, published in 1762. (1,2) This monumental work is part of the family of older, major writings on contract theory by Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704). The relationships between individuals, the and government form the key components of Rousseau's social contract. A first principle to govern these relationships is that man has no authority over other human beings and sheer force exercised by one individual over another does not justify authority. Rather, legitimate authority must find its rationale in so-called pacts or contracts. (2) Secondly, competition among men stimulate the need for a pact, so that each can preserve oneself and be protected by the will enacted by the people. (3) The contract purports to provide a proper alternative to the state of For Rousseau, the of nature was initially peaceful, with this harmony attributable--among other things--to the small size of the population, the abundance of nature and the absence of competition. (3) Gradually society became more complex, introduced private and created new forms of dependence among men, resulting in economic and inequalities. The of greed and competition that came into being led Rousseau to propose a new pact, in broad agreement with Hobbes. Hobbes proclaimed men to be rational and interested in such a pact, as it would bring them a better life compared with the of nature. (3) In addition, for Locke, a particularly strong reason to abandon the of nature and for men to contract with government was the emergence of war. Rousseau compares the contract to an act of association whereby there is reciprocal commitment between the and the individual. The individuals as citizens share sovereign power, but as subjects put themselves under the laws of the state. Rousseau also defines government as one of the principal actors: it is an intermediary body between the subjects and the with the main tasks of executing the laws and preserving and political freedom. (2) Interestingly, Rousseau uses economic reasoning in the evaluation of the contract, by comparing losses and gains: What man loses by the contract is his and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is and the proprietorship of all he possesses. (2) (Note here that natural liberty is constrained by the physical power of the individual, whereas it is the general that defines the contents of civil liberty. In addition, property is based on a legal tide whereas possession is the result of man exercising force.) According to Rousseau, the result of this kind of cost-benefit analysis is clearly positive: individuals get net benefits, as the contract preserve them and protect them through the general which is shaped by the same individuals. Furthermore, the adoption of a contract is rational, as without it the of nature (which is also referred to by Roussean as a primitive condition) is put under such pressure that it would collapse. How can we now assess Rousseau's contract within the context of the development of contractual arrangements, such as in the health sector? (4) The contract is focusing on principles of political organization and cooperation at the highest levels of society, and its usefulness for practical approaches at the micro- or meso-levels is scant. In particular, the process of seeking agreement for specific contracts does not find ready and practical advice in Rousseau's book, but its principles help in understanding the rationale for cooperation in the health sector. …