Can you be forced to be free? : Jean Jacques Rousseau

Yes, you can, if you renege on your promise to be free. 

But first, let's talk about Reason. The importance of reason in democracy is often talked about in academic circles and is not lost on us in today's time. While reason was, one of the great re-discoveries of the enlightenment period, our protagonist, Jean Jacques Rousseau wasn't quite on its' side. Instead, he is considered the founder of Romanticism. The founder of a body of ideas that preached feeling,  passionate activity and radical liberty, over the mundane and calculated, a whiff of which we may get towards the end here. He is also credited for the rise of modern nationalism and we all know what passionate nationalism looks like. 

So much for Rousseau's "sensibility", his work on political theory in the book, The Social Contract lent itself a lot more to reason. He sets out a primary problem, one very similar to the questions posed by the famed duo, Hobbes and Locke. 

Not another Social Contract!

"Let us take it that men have reached the point at which the obstacles to their survival in the state of nature overpower each individual’s resources for maintaining himself in that state. So this primitive condition can’t go on; the human race will perish unless it changes its manner of existence"

Evidently, Rousseau's idea is that the state of nature cannot go on. His state of nature is not tenable, in its capricious effects and demands. Infact this portrayal of the SoN is very similar to Hobbes' idea(life is nasty, brutish and short), if you remember from our earlier discussion. 

"Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains".

Typically one would assume that the state of nature is supposed to imply absolute freedom. No laws, no government, no gun wielding guards and policemen. But according to Rousseau, that isnt enough freedom. Firstly, man is a slave of his temptations. So unimpeded gluttony and avarice, would not qualify as freedom for him. Secondly, freedom is not just the absence of rules and restrictions. It is also the ability to achieve what one truly desires. To rise out of one's base desires and carry out what "one truly desires" by the way of prosperity and achievement, is for Rousseau, a more fulfilling idea of Freedom and Liberty.

Hence, for Rousseau the state of nature, even though removed from all restrictions, doesn't offer the right milieu for the enhancement of one's liberty. The caprice of fellow humans and the insecurity, absence of legal right to property, lack of any community and a set of ideals keep a person in chains, even though he or she may be physically free.

What then is his solution? What institution do we create that enables a woman/man's freedom?

"Find a form of association that will bring the whole common force to bear on defending and protecting each associate’s person and goods, doing this in such a way that each of them, while uniting himself with all, still obeys only himself and remains as free as before.’ There’s the basic problem that is solved by the social contract."

So evidently, there is great similarity with Locke here, in that he doesnt just want protection out of this association, but also the preservation of individual liberty and property. Here in, we also find the complete statement of the problem Rousseau sets out for himself . It does strike as odd, that in one breath, he says that men or women, must be liberated, in more ways than one and in the same breath asks that everybody unite themselves. How is it even possible, that while everyone alienates his/her rights, and that means all rights, one's liberty could still be preserved? 

"Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will..".

'Volente Generale'

Hence Rousseau proposes the General Will. 

The General Will at the outset does sound like the collective will of the society, and so it is. However, there is much difference between the will of all and general will. The latter considers only the common interest: the former looks to private interest and is only the sum of particular wills. 

Rousseau says:

"If, when the people, being furnished with adequate information, held its deliberations, the citizens had no communication with one another, the grand total of the small differences would always give the general will and the decision would always be good"  

So it seems like every person's will is composed of both private interests and more common interests. Rousseau's optimism suggests that when every person's will combines, the private interests will cancel out and what will remain is the common interest. 

Great, simple, awesome!

This is indeed the most common way to interpret his idea of the General will. 

However, another way in which the common interest can be understood, in addition to being the literal commonness of interests, is as being the interest that could be willed in common by the various members of a society. That is, if everyone were taken indifferently (or equally) and were asked what they could all equally will as being something willed for all. 

To be more clear, this perspective, brings Rousseau's focus on equality into the picture. Perhaps Rousseau demands a special way of thinking and deliberating about the general will from each citizen, when he says 

"‘as long as several men in assembly regard themselves as a single body, they have only a single will which is concerned with their common preservation and general well-being" 

So Rousseau appears to demand that citizens not merely think of their particular wills and try to negotiate or bargain to ensure their demands feature in the general will. He requires that citizens think of themselves as equal members of a single body and will in a manner that ensures the good and preservation of this single body. Each person must think of everyone's interests in an impartial manner, placing himself equally among the body of men and women. So for the general will to arise, he must think of everybody's interests equally, before placing his will. 

So far so good, on the General Will. Two things to remember however. Rousseau's original objective, if we recall was to improve the liberty of the individual and to free him of his chains. The General will, is supposed to enable him to achieve this, by making him think of the common interest and have it implemented, hence ensuring that his more selfish interests are cancelled out or kept out and his more enlightened interests are carried out and that in this process everyone uplifts one another to achieve greater prosperity for everyone. 

Secondly, it is quite possible that someone may not wish to obey the General Will. He might, due to his waywardness or ignorance, choose to disobey. Here is where Rousseau says, that such a person shall be "forced to be free". He shall be forced to obey what was willed in common wisdom. Hence freedom, it appears lies in obeying the general will. 

Forced to be free in a Democracy?

That is what Democracy is all about. Rule of Law has been a part of human society for a long time. Initially it was set by the tribal leaders, eventually by kings, emperors and even feudal lords. But in none of these were the people free to set their own rules. It is the social contract, as an ideology, that enables people to set their own rules and decide what they ought to obey and what disobedience would lead to. In this sense, from being forced into subjection,  Rousseau's social contract enabled people to be forced to be free. To be forced to obey what they set out for themselves.

Rousseau and Democracy 

Our objective at the outset was to understand Rousseau's contribution to Democracy, both during his time and to our times.

Rousseau was writing at a time when the Divine Right of Kings was still a thing. John Locke and Rousseau between themselves rebelled against the Divine Right and inspired the American and French Revolutions respectively, both of which aimed at Liberty, Equality and Democracy.

Rousseau, in particular, in today's context helps us understand how Democracy is supposed to work, as the rule of the people's voice, of the General will, that is assembled from everyone's wills equally. It is not supposed to be, just the will of the elite or the middle classes, but rather include everyone, something our current COVID crisis has crucially reminded us.

Secondly, these wills too are to be willed in a manner that they keep everyone's interests equally mind. One should not simply think of one's own interest and seek to bargain. As a corporate employee, one must not simple seek tax brakes in the budget. One must also think of the social security needs of the larger society.

Finally, perhaps Rousseau's seeks more ambition and passion in us. He wants us to achieve more as individuals and as a society, rather than just be content fulfilling base desires and needs. He wants us to break our chains and be free in the more fuller sense of the word.

Please feel free to engage with Rousseau and the author in the comment section.

References

1.  Ross Harrison: Democracy (1993) - Routledge

2. Bertrand Russell : History of Western Philosophy(1945) - Routledge