Rousseaus Conception of the General Will and Tyranny - Essay Example

ROUSSEAU’S CONCEPTION OF THE GENERAL WILL PROMOTES TYRANNY Introduction The understanding of the phrase ‘general will’ is crucial in order to comprehend its contextual definition. Rousseau, a renowned political theorist and philosophical thinker, whose ideas had enormous influences on French revolution, first coined the phrase. Rousseau was a prominent philosopher who supported the Contract idea or theory that asserted that states develop because of contract between individuals. Rousseau asserts that, in a democratic social unit, the contract reflect the citizen’s general will and that in following the state laws, an individual is affecting his personal interest. Rousseau differentiates amid the general will concept and other interest. He asserts that a general will represents a moral will that seeks to attain common good. Although, his work has had profound influences on other philosophical thinkers and political theorist, some experts believe that Rousseau, conception of the general will idea serves to promote tyranny in a society. Therefore, the discussion aims to investigate whether Rousseau’s idea of general will promote tyranny in society. Discussion Overviews of Rousseau’s general will ideas Rousseau presumed that all individuals are able to assume the moral perspective of seeking the common good and that if all people did so they would ultimately attain a unanimous choice. Therefore, in a real society, regulations articulate the general will. A person who opposes the general law fails to observe things from a moral perspective. The general will articulated by social regulations is what such a person will share if she adopts a moral perspective, an ideal human, perspective. Rousseau suggests that the social contact amidst individuals exists to protect freedoms and rights of entire human population. He asserts that as long as a group of people come together and view themselves as a whole or entity, they only have a single objective that is geared towards their shared protection and general welfare, (Kierstead, 2004, p.44). Then, all the invigorating efforts of the governments are vigorous and candid, and the states principles are clear and luminous – it lacks incompatible or contradicting interest – the shared interest makes itself increasingly evident that only elementary knowledge is required to discern it. Harmony, cooperation and equality are the political advancements enemies. How general will concept promotes tyranny The phrase general will, as Rousseau concept of a democratic society, has been increasingly controversial and obscure. Various political theorists and philosophers such as Hobbes and Plato have criticized the idea and argued that it represents proletariat dictatorship or the urban minority tyranny. This is because Rousseau suggested that the personal property concept as accountable for generating disorder in a society that resembles communistic opposition of private property, (Jones, 2002, 52). However, in a practical sense, Rousseau did not have such ideas. Additionally, since various criticisms of the concept are in opposition of private property, Rousseau in his later explanation of the idea attempted to include additional features to the concept. He suggests that personal freedom and rights are only protected when he is viewed in a collective life viewpoint. No freedom for a person could prove advantageous if it infringes those rights of citizens as a whole. This idea is viewed tyrannical in the sense that the concept only protects the liberty of majority people ignoring minority rights. Either citizens have their own interest and freedom of choice and can choose to obey the will of all or the general will. Therefore, under whatever circumstance, the society and state law should protect all people irrespective of their interests. This is because a society is not homogenous but heterogeneous – has diverse people with different interests and opinions. A crucial limitation of Rousseau’s ideology is that it is naturally ambiguous and incomprehensible. It is hard to find a society where the concept truly dominates, and it is extremely challenging to gauge it. Additionally, the Rousseau’s concept is likely to make citizens think of collectivism than individual, therefore, making an effort to compromise people for the society or state – turning the system to be extensively totalitarian in nature. Therefore, arguing that social democracy inclines to protect the general will’ will, underrate the features of democracy that aims to preserve individual freedom largely. Similarly, in this perspective the description of government of citizens, for the citizens and by the citizens does not adequately portray democracy, (Linz, 2011, p.32). Additionally, if democracy safeguards only the general will, then what will happen to the private will of people, groups and societies? It is obvious that not all people agree to the general will, minority groups and societies in a government may not agree with the general will and sometimes some people tend to oppose it. Therefore, some philosophers believe that the concept only reinforces the idea of social inequalities among people. Since democracy respects and safeguards all right of people – minority and majority rights -, I think that the concept of the general will does not follow democracy rules and does not create a democratic and just society. If democracy seeks to safeguard the rights and interests of the majority – who adhere to the rules of the general will, - then it is inevitably oppressive. Similarly, in the same sense, it also inclines to disregard the diversity in various global states, (Trachtenberg, 1993, p.56). Rousseau naively presumes that only a single general will exists that benefits all citizens. In the comprehensive definition, the shared interest represents a combination of people interests. An ideal liberal society must safeguard competing motives. Rousseau similarly, makes no differentiation between utility and general will, arguing that the general will is often in favor of common good. What makes Rousseau’s idea tyrannical is that, irrespective of the fact that his efforts to distinguish among general will and common will for all, he leaves inexplicable the strategies to evaluate whether an act is a general will or common will. This consequently, results to the detrimental tyranny form as totalitarian government can oppress the concept and compel citizens to act in opposition of the ideal will. In addition, an inevitable outcome of dependence on the concept is a majority tyranny. Rousseau prominently suggested that if a person disapproves the general will, the person must be accorded liberty, a paradox to the same freedom concept from the perspective of classical liberal thinkers. The phrase general will ostensibly means that there exists a will common to all citizens of a state. Nevertheless, even if this were true, searching for a true democratic society in on the general will principle would be terribly unreasonable. Rousseau after creating a strong image of cooperative objective and goodwill among the public, finally accepts that unreasonableness later in his work and offer a slightly less challenging strategy – the rule of the majority. By admitting such explanations, conversely, Rousseau negates from his earlier standpoint that the citizens would never exploit themselves, (Cohen, 2012, p.63). Literature has clearly indicated that majoritarianism, without challenges, including Bill of Rights, result to exploitation of the poor and state oppression on a larger scale. Therefore, the only ethical generals will perception that would achieve Rousseau’s extensive interests is total unanimity, and if this was to be attained in an extensive aggregation of self-interested people, then what would be the purpose of coercive state? Rousseau asserts that individual liberty does not need to be protected because the person will in a way regulate himself through the general will concept, (McDonald and Hoffmann, 2010, p.63). As earlier discussed; however, Rousseau’s idea of the concept is an insufficient protection against tyranny and inequality, and in the real sense, the person would be highly oppressed by the government or society. This outrageous underestimation on Rousseau’s side anchors from his perception of people as means to extensive attainments, rather that ends to some means. His overall disrespect for citizen rights runs straightforwardly against ancient Western individualism and suspends his true society definition under a sterile moral emptiness. Similarly, Rousseau suggests that the society or government may exert total control over citizens lives and property because such citizens have given the state right to do so courtesy of the social contract. The principle of social contract acts to legalize actions originally known to be oppressive and exploitative, and at initial glance the general will concept appear rational. Upon, clear investigation and reflection, nevertheless, a crucial concern arises whether the social contract is a contract or not. For instance, contracts by explanation must outline two crucial characteristics. First, they must have a voluntary entry and secondly, must clearly state the rights and responsibilities of people involved. Rousseau’s contract monstrously failed to demonstrate both requirements. Social contract of Rousseau is seemingly deliberate, but any citizens declining to sign the contract would be compelled – by the state – to flee and would experience land confiscation, although he did not use force against another person. In addition, the contract terms are extremely vague. For instance, the contracting person accepts to give his valuable life, freedom and material wealth to state in exchange for indecisive vote in the construction of a ruling but extraordinarily defective general will, (Young, 2008, p.85). The renowned social contract is mainly the hallmark of the single way street – the society or government receives everything, gives extremely nothing in return and thus, keep all the cards. The historical evidence that no contract resembling the social contract of Rousseau has ever existed in the market economy is a clear proof that this contract is unacceptable at all. The contract primarily manipulates the low class- citizens- to compromise their personal rights and freedoms to the powerful, society. Rousseau’s primary ideas for the contract are contradictory in that he argues that there is a conflict between natural and civic liberty. He suggests that natural rights oppose social legal rights, and that his social contract legitimizes the preservation of each citizen’s civil rights mainly by depriving him natural rights, (Linz, 2011, p.23). Whereas supporting civil freedom and equal citizenship, Rousseau supports the absolute state authority. On the other hand, whereas objecting the challenges of tyranny and enslavement, Rousseau attempts to mitigate totalitarianism and dictatorship challenges. In this argument, Rousseau only brought out a contradiction between his earlier ideas and later ideologies. In other words, he was just admitting the idea that his general will concept promotes tyranny and enslavement rather than creating a democratic society. Most of Rousseau’s ideas are anchored on the principle of the natural state. Similarly, in this state, no person has legal autonomy over another person. Any authority that a person has over another person is created only by intimidation, and this does not justify intimidation. In the natural state, personal are motivated by personal interests and desire to take advantage of others. Rousseau holds that natural law is that self-preservation law and that people have no natural responsibilities over each other, (Jones, 2002, p.56). In other words, in the general will people are motivated by their individual desires and not public good. Nevertheless, Rousseau also suggests that in the natural state, people ultimately realize that they must cooperate to safeguard their lives and their property from exploitation of the powerful groups. Thus, according to Rousseau social contract is crucial to safeguard civil freedom and protect fundamental rights including legal property rights. In the contrary, the contract is achieved by compromising ultimate freedom in return for social and moral liberty. This state legitimizes state oppression of their citizens; therefore, societal contract concept ends up promoting tyranny. The main challenge with Rousseau concept of the general will is that even though he argues that rights are given to people by state and liberty is crucial for the good of all Rousseau cannot explain the general will concept in extensive level. He only points out that rights are naturally social, but he cannot define the extent to which, people should attain power over their inalienable liberty. In other words, Rousseau seems, in his liberty explanation, to support totalitarian instead of democracy, (Cohen, 2012, p.77). Rousseau does not seem to put considerable attention on the ability of an individual to live on his own means. Therefore, experts agree that social contract may be a tyrannical tactic that involves actions that a person who objects the general will should be forced to obey it by the entire body – the state. This implies that one has no alternative but to free. This alone validates those civil actions, which, their absence would be irrational, tyrannical and subject to the extensively terrible results. Rousseau’s portrayal of state under the concept of the general will is extremely controversial because it appears like an impractical human judgment and attributes generalization. Although, he emphasizes that personal interests should be changed to benefit the entire state, it appears that this mechanism is essentially unrealistic. Private interests are hard to distinguish from personal decision; thus, the general will concept appears hypothetically hopeless. It is extremely unlikely that an individual will favor a choice that is not created from self-interest since the supporting of the choices is entirely a self-interest act. In fact, the social fabric comprise of various diverse ethnic groups, economic origins as well as personalities for a satisfying society-drive agreement to occur, (Kierstead, 2004, p.44). In addition, not all people will ever agree on something because some may support a point while other opposes it. Common good remains a mystery in a split society; therefore, Rousseau’s idea of the general will is misplaced and manifests as a mediocre resort. By enhancing a protection of inequality via the social agreement, but still portraying its adverse side, Rousseau reflects a blurred progression image. Conclusion Even though, Rousseau’s concept of the general will is a deliberately oppressive document, it is extremely essential in the creation of a free society. His argument has influenced various philosophers and critical thinkers and helps trace the roots of modern socialism. His ideology can also aid see various contradictions and misconceptions behind this ethically void ideology, unbarred by excellent rhetorical contemporary collectivists’ mechanisms. The ideas promoted by Rousseau in his argument trouble humanity even today, and will continue until people finally experience them. Similarly, the tyranny specter will dominate the state as long as Rousseau’s ideology remains. Bibliography Cohen, J. (2010). Rousseau: a free community of equals. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Jones, T. (2002). Modern political thinkers and ideas: an historical introduction. London, Routledge. Kierstead, F. D. (2004). Education for a transitional democracy: a comparison of Jean Jacques Rousseaus concept of general will to John Deweys concept of collective intelligence. Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Oklahoma, 2004. Linz, J. (2011). The general will and the problem of self-love: an analysis of Rousseaus theory of citizenship. Thesis (Ph. D.)--Southern Illinois University Carbondale, 2011. McDonald, C., & Hoffmann, S. (2010). Rousseau and freedom. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. Trachtenberg, Z. M. (1993). Making citizens: Rousseaus political theory of culture. London, Routledge. Young, E. D. (2008). Rousseaus conception of the general will. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Read More