Social Contract and Hegels Model - Essay Example

Social Contract and Hegel’s Model The Hegelian model of the is that of an ethical community that is politically organized - a sovereign community independent from others and subject to a supreme public authority and a framework of laws founded in ethics and reason. Hegel defines ethical life as the identification of the individual with the totality of his social life (Hegel 419). The formulation of the state is based upon the fact that spiritual realities can only be manifested through its existence, because the State is actually the embodiment of the rational essence of a particular group of people. The State is the form of expression of the people in an objective form that exists for them as knowers. Therefore possession under such a model of State would mean that property would belong to a person only to the extent recognized by others, and is a part of man’s struggle for recognition.(Hegel 439). The Hegelian model holds that the highest values and best traditions of a society can be politically embodied and expressed by the State. For Hegel, the State is universally altruistic, hence the interests of the State transcend those of the individual, because it is a means for a group of individuals to relate to each other out of a common will to live with other human beings in a community. (Avineri 134). The State is the ultimate embodiment of the amalgamation of the rational laws that govern a people and their subjective wills. The Social Contract Model is also founded upon the premise of recognition by others, however it is based upon those principles of social justice which individuals would adopt voluntarily in the absence of self interest. It does not view the State as the all encompassing, highest political expression of human interest; rather the laws that govern the State are formulated on the basis of principles that are commonly agreed to among people. In adopting principles to establish and govern their social institutions, certain limits will be set on individual freedom in order to ensure justice to everyone. However, within this framework, the model is formulated, consisting of initial conditions, the bargaining situation with actual proposals and the resulting social contract.(Rummel, 1981). Rawls articulates these principles of formulation of the State on the basis of social contract as follows: “No society can of course, be a scheme of cooperation which people enter voluntarily in a literal sense; ….yet a society satisfying the principles of justice as fairness comes as close as a society can to being a voluntary scheme, for it meets the principles which free and equal persons would assent to under circumstances that are fair. In this sense, its members are autonomous and the obligations they recognize are self imposed.” (Rawls 13) One of the major differences between the Hegelian view of the State and the Social Contract Theory is in the degree of freedom that exists within each. Hegel’s model views the State as the agent of true freedom for the individual, with this freedom existing in the power to reason. Therefore, he does not view freedom as a natural state, rather it is to be found within the State where the only restriction the State places upon freedom is the limiting of the crudest of human drives and passion. However, as per the Social Contract model of the State, freedom is viewed as a naturally existing state that every individual is entitled to, while the State is an agent that limits that freedom with individual freedom limited in order to allow others an equal measure of freedom. The Hegelian model of the State has been criticized on the grounds that it is based on an abstract divine and philosophical idea; that Hegel ignored the social context of human relations and over rationalized existing social organizations. According to Russell, the metaphysics of the Hegelian model implies that “true liberty consists in obedience to an arbitrary authority, that free speech is an evil, that absolute monarchy is good….”(Russell 22). Hegel’s views do not support the position that freedom exists in a natural state, rather such freedom is nothing more than caprice, which must be limited by the State if true freedom is to exist. Hence, one of the major differences between the two theories is in the conceptualization of true freedom. The Social Contract Theory views freedom as a naturally existing state which individuals attain in an ideal situation but which the State must limit in order to ensure that there is some equity in the freedom provided to all. However, the Hegelian model does not view the State as an agent that limits freedom, rather it is the State which ensures true freedom for everyone by imposing minimal restrictions on caprice, or man’s crudest drives. On this basis therefore, law as conceived of under the Social Contract model would be that which is derived on the basis of commonly agreed principles among the people which may not necessarily be of the highest moral order, but satisfy the needs of a society at a particular time. However, according to the Hegelian model, the law is a form of expression of divine and philosophical principles, with the State being the agent that executes these laws through the exercise of reason to bring true freedom to all. Another difference between the two models is that the Social Contract theory of the State is one which can be classified as a basic extension of the family based patriarchal system of authority. Therefore justice in society organized according to the Social Contract Theory would result in laws that are formulated by those individuals who are designated the patriarchs in a particular society. However, according to the Hegelian model, patriarchal networks cannot be a valid basis for the formulation of laws, since the patriarchal condition is a transitional one. Therefore if patriarchal networks are extended into the formulation of laws for the State, it becomes equivalent to a theocracy, in which freedom of individual citizens would be limited solely on the basis of the authority of the patriarchs. The Hegelian model relies upon the spiritual, divine immutable principles for the formulation of the law. On this basis, Hegel also argues against mechanization of labor, as violative of the spiritual basis that must underlie human society, as follows: “Labor which is oriented towards the object as a whole, is (being) divided and becomes particular labor and this particular labor becomes more and more mechanical because of its manifold nature is (being) excluded….”(Hegel 437). Therefore, the existence of the norms of society in the Hegelian model will not be conditioned by collective principles formulated according to man’s views at a particular time; rather they must be based upon spiritual principles which can only be enforced and maintained by the State. Yet another difference is the fact that the Social Contract Model is formulated upon the basis of majority rule, therefore the existence of the State and its form of existence is conditioned by the collective will, as manifested through voting by individual citizens. Therefore, the resulting set of rules and principles on the basis of which the State is governed is the result of the collective will. Hegel’s model on the contrary argues against this rule of the majority, on the basis that it equates to a rule by subjective will without taking objective will into account. Hegel’s model puts forward the position of complete obedience to the State, since in order to function as an agent that brings true freedom to the people, the State must be equipped with autonomy in decision making and the power to exercise real authority in implementing governing principles and practices within a State. While this may appear to be restricting of individual freedom, it is in fact conducive to true freedom by limiting the caprice of individuals. Conclusion: In conclusion therefore, it may be noted that the Social, Contract theory is founded upon power by the people, while Hegel’s model is founded upon power to the State. The patriarchal role or the role of the Head of the State is important according to the Social Contract Theory, the Hegelian model emphasizes the structure of the State. The essential difference in the two models lies in the conception of freedom. While the Social Contract theory views freedom as a naturally existing state that is limited by the State, the Hegelian model views total freedom as being nothing more than caprice and that true freedom can only be achieved through the State, which must implement divine philosophical principles and impose select restrictions in the interest of ensuring true freedom. This, while the Social Contract Theory views the form of the State as being conditioned by the collective will of the people at a particular time and governed by patriarchal authority, the Hegelian model views the State itself as the agent that can bring true freedom to the people if provided the autonomy and authority to do so. References: * Avineri, Shlomo, 1972. “Hegel’s Theory of the Modern State.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press * Rawls, J, 1971. “A Theory of Justice” MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. * Rummel, R.J., 1981. “The Social Contract Model”(Chapter 5) IN “The Just Peace.” [online] available at: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/TJP.CHAP5.HTM#* * Russell, Betrand, 1950. “Unpopular Essays.” London: George Allen and Unwin. * Hegel, George William Friedrich, 1923. “System der Sittlichkeit” in “Schriften zur Politik und Rechtsphilosophie” (Writings to the policy and philosophy of law.” Leipzig Publishers. Read More