The Social Contract

1. Man's Innate Freedom and Societal Chains

MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.

The fundamental paradox. Rousseau opens with a powerful statement: humans are naturally free, yet universally subjected to various forms of constraint. This isn't a lament about physical bondage, but a philosophical inquiry into the legitimacy of political authority and the origins of societal subjugation. He questions how this transformation from natural liberty to widespread "chains" occurred and, more importantly, what could possibly make such a condition legitimate.

Rejecting false justifications. Rousseau systematically dismantles common justifications for authority, such as the "right of the strongest" or the idea that individuals can legitimately sell themselves into slavery. Force, he argues, creates no right; it's an act of necessity, not will. Similarly, alienating one's liberty is to renounce one's humanity, an absurd and illegitimate act, as it removes all morality from one's actions and offers no possible indemnity.

Beyond natural bonds. The only natural society, the family, dissolves once children no longer need their father for preservation. Any continued union is voluntary, based on convention. Therefore, all legitimate political authority must also be founded on conventions, not on inherent natural superiority or brute force. This sets the stage for his exploration of the social contract as the only valid basis for collective governance.

2. The Social Compact: A Foundation for Legitimate Society

"The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before."

The core dilemma. Humanity reaches a point where individual efforts in the state of nature are insufficient to overcome obstacles to preservation. To survive, individuals must unite their forces. The challenge is to create an association that protects everyone's person and property, yet allows each individual to remain as free as they were before joining. This is the central problem the Social Contract aims to solve.

Total alienation for true freedom. The solution lies in the "total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community." This might sound like a loss of freedom, but Rousseau argues it's the opposite. Because everyone gives up everything, the conditions are equal for all, and no one has an interest in making them burdensome for others. Crucially, by giving oneself to all, one gives oneself to nobody in particular, gaining an equivalent for what is lost and an increased collective force for preservation.

The birth of the body politic. This act of association creates a "moral and collective body" – the Republic or body politic. Its members are collectively called the "people," and individually "citizens" (as sharers in sovereign power) and "subjects" (as being under the laws). This collective entity, the Sovereign, derives its existence entirely from the sanctity of this contract, and its will, the general will, becomes the supreme guide for the common good.

3. Sovereignty: The Indivisible and Inalienable General Will

I hold then that Sovereignty, being nothing less than the exercise of the general will, can never be alienated, and that the Sovereign, who is no less than a collective being, cannot be represented except by himself: the power indeed may be transmitted, but not the will.

The essence of sovereignty. Sovereignty is the exercise of the general will, which always aims at the common good. This general will is fundamentally different from the "will of all," which is merely the sum of particular, often conflicting, private interests. The general will is always right and tends to public advantage, though the people can be deceived and thus make incorrect deliberations.

Inalienable and indivisible. Rousseau asserts that sovereignty cannot be given away (alienated) or divided. The general will cannot be represented; it must be expressed directly by the people. While power can be delegated, the will itself cannot. Any attempt to divide sovereignty into legislative, executive, or judicial powers is an illusion, as these are merely emanations or applications of the single, supreme general will.

Factions corrupt the will. For the general will to express itself purely, there should be no "partial societies" or factions within the State. When factions arise, they introduce particular interests that distort the common good. If such societies must exist, it's better to have many small ones to prevent any single one from dominating, ensuring that the "sum of the differences" still approximates the general will.

4. The Legislator: Architect of a Nation's Soul

It would take gods to give men laws.

The extraordinary task. To establish a truly good society, a "superior intelligence" is needed – a Legislator. This figure must understand human passions without experiencing them, be independent of human happiness yet concerned with it, and work for a distant future. This role is not one of magistracy or sovereignty; the Legislator invents the machine, while the prince merely operates it.

Transforming human nature. The Legislator's profound task is to "change human nature," transforming individuals from solitary wholes into parts of a greater whole. This involves altering man's constitution to strengthen it, substituting a moral existence for a physical one, and replacing individual resources with collective ones. The more completely natural resources are annihilated, the more stable and perfect the new institutions become.

Authority without power. The Legislator has no legislative right; the people alone can ratify laws. To overcome the difficulty of a "blind multitude" not always knowing what is good for it, the Legislator often resorts to "divine intervention," attributing laws to the gods. This allows people to obey freely, accepting the "yoke of public happiness" through divine authority, as human prudence alone might not suffice to move them.

5. Government: A Mere Agent, Not the Sovereign Power

What then is government? An intermediate body set up between the subjects and the Sovereign, to secure their mutual correspondence, charged with the execution of the laws and the maintenance of liberty, both civil and political.

Distinguishing powers. Rousseau clearly separates the legislative power (the Sovereign, which is the people) from the executive power (the government or prince). The legislative power belongs solely to the people, expressing the general will through laws. The executive power, however, consists of particular acts that apply these laws and cannot belong to the Sovereign, as its acts must always be general.

A commission, not a contract. The institution of government is not a contract between the people and its rulers. It is a commission, an employment, where rulers are merely officials or "ministers" of the Sovereign. The Sovereign can limit, modify, or reclaim this power at will, as its alienation is incompatible with the social body's nature. The government's will should be nothing but the general will.

The risk of usurpation. The government, as an artificial body, has its own corporate will, which can become more active than the general will. If the prince (the governing body) attempts to base absolute acts on its own authority, or if its particular will overrides the general will, the social bond loosens. This can lead to the government usurping sovereign power, breaking the social compact, and dissolving the State into despotism or anarchy.

6. Diverse Governments for Diverse Peoples and Climates

If, in the different States, the number of supreme magistrates should be in inverse ratio to the number of citizens, it follows that, generally, democratic government suits small States, aristocratic government those of middle size, and monarchy great ones.

No universal best form. There is no single "best government" for all nations. The ideal form depends on the specific circumstances, size, wealth, and character of the people. Rousseau identifies three main forms:

• Democracy: Where the Sovereign (people) also acts as the government. Best for small states with simple morals, high equality, and little luxury. Highly demanding and prone to civil strife.
• Aristocracy: Government by a small number of magistrates. Natural (elders), elective (best), or hereditary (worst). Suitable for middle-sized states, allowing for more efficient administration and selection of the wise.
• Monarchy: Government by a single individual. Most vigorous and efficient, but also most prone to the particular will of the monarch overriding the public good. Best for large, wealthy nations, but inherently unstable due to succession issues and the corruption of power.

Climate and resources matter. Rousseau argues that climate and the fertility of the land significantly influence the appropriate form of government.

• Hot, fertile lands: Produce a surplus with little labor, suitable for monarchy, where the surplus can be absorbed by the prince's luxury rather than dissipated among individuals.
• Temperate lands: Moderate surplus, suitable for free peoples and good polity.
• Barren, cold lands: Little surplus, suitable for barbarous peoples or small, poor democracies.

The balance of forces. The strength of the government should be inversely proportional to the size of the population. Larger states require stronger, more concentrated governments (monarchy), while smaller states can sustain more relaxed forms (democracy). This ensures a proper balance between the Sovereign, the government, and the subjects.

7. The True Measure of Good Governance: Population Growth

What is the end of political association? The preservation and prosperity of its members. And what is the surest mark of their preservation and prosperity? Their numbers and population.

Beyond subjective opinions. When asked what constitutes a good government, people often give subjective answers: tranquility, liberty, security, severity, mildness, wealth, or bread. Rousseau cuts through these by proposing an objective, measurable criterion: the preservation and prosperity of its members, best indicated by population growth.

A clear, objective metric. "The government under which, without external aids, without naturalisation or colonies, the citizens increase and multiply most, is beyond question the best. The government under which a people wanes and diminishes is the worst." This simple, undeniable fact serves as the ultimate test of a state's health and the effectiveness of its governance.

The purpose of the State. The ultimate goal of any political association is the well-being of its citizens. If a state is well-governed, its people will thrive, leading to natural population increase. Conversely, a declining population signals fundamental problems, regardless of apparent peace or wealth. This metric forces a focus on the actual lived experience of the populace, rather than the pronouncements of rulers or the superficial prosperity of a few.

8. The Inevitable Decline and the Enduring General Will

The body politic, as well as the human body, begins to die as soon as it is born, and carries in itself the causes of its destruction.

Inherent fragility. Like all human creations, the body politic is mortal. It carries the seeds of its own destruction from birth. The constant opposition between the particular will of the government and the general will of the Sovereign inevitably leads to the government's exertion against the Sovereign, eventually breaking the social treaty.

Degeneration of government. Governments tend to degenerate in two ways:

• Contraction: Shifting from the many to the few (democracy to aristocracy, aristocracy to monarchy). This is its natural propensity as its energy is exhausted.
• Dissolution of the State: Occurs when the prince usurps sovereign power, or when individual magistrates usurp collective power. This breaks the social compact, returning citizens to natural liberty (though they are compelled to obey).

The indestructible general will. Even when the State is on the verge of ruin, and particular interests dominate, the general will is not destroyed or corrupted. It remains "constant, unalterable and pure," merely subordinated to other wills. When people vote for private interest, they are not extinguishing the general will, but rather answering a different question than what is truly asked, mistaking their particular will for the common good.

9. Civil Religion: Uniting Hearts with the State

Every religion, therefore, being attached solely to the laws of the State which prescribed it, there was no way of converting a people except by enslaving it, and there could be no missionaries save conquerors.

The problem of dual loyalties. Historically, early societies had "civil religions" where gods and laws were inseparable, fostering unity. Christianity, however, introduced a "spiritual kingdom" separate from the political, creating dual loyalties to master and priest. This division, Rousseau argues, has made good governance impossible in Christian states, as citizens are torn between contradictory duties.

Critique of Christianity. Rousseau distinguishes between "the religion of man" (pure Gospel Christianity, focused on heavenly things) and "the religion of the citizen" (ancient civil religions, uniting divine cult with love of laws). He finds the former problematic for the State because it detaches citizens from earthly affairs, making them indifferent to the State's success and weakening social bonds. A society of "true Christians" would be perfect but not a society of men, lacking the necessary earthly vigor.

The necessity of a civil religion. To ensure social cohesion and the State's preservation, Rousseau proposes a "civil religion" with simple, positive dogmas:

• The existence of a powerful, intelligent, benevolent divinity.
• A future life with rewards for the just and punishments for the wicked.
• The sanctity of the social contract and the laws.
• Exclusion of intolerance.
  These dogmas are not religious tenets but "sentiments of sociability" necessary for being a good citizen. While the State cannot compel belief, it can banish those who do not believe, not as impious, but as unsociable, incapable of sincerely loving the laws or their country.

Last updated: January 14, 2026