Term paper on Rousseau S General Will
Rousseau S General Will Essays
While the free essays can give you inspiration for writing, they cannot be used 'as is' because they will not meet your assignment's requirements. If you are in a time crunch, then you need a custom written term paper on your subject (rousseau s general will)
Here you can hire an independent writer/researcher to custom write you an authentic essay to your specifications that will pass any plagiarism test (e.g. Turnitin). Waste no more time!
Rousseau's concept of "the general will" (la volont g n rale) has been generally misunderstood. It has been criticized on the one hand as a form of vacuous idealism, and on the other hand as nothing more than another name for majority rule. But the concept is, in fact, neither of these. Rousseau constructs a sophisticated and meaningful picture of the general will that manages to avoid both of these extreme positions. Situated between those two poles, it provides a solid foundation for the state that Rousseau envisions. In the role that he has assigned to it, the general will does not fall short; but that does not mean that the general will is beyond criticism. In this paper I will argue that what needs to be questioned in Rousseau's theory is not the general will's efficiency, but rather its possibility. In order to make this argument, my first project will be to clarify just exactly what Rousseau means by "the general will." Taking him at his word when he says, "[a]ll of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all at once,"1 I will try to piece together the many and various comments on the general will that Rousseau makes throughout the Social Contract in order to form--ultimately--a single coherent picture of the phenomenon. After that, I will raise some questions about that picture, and consider the adequacy of the foundation that it provides for a society. Then I want to take up the deeper question concerning what makes Rousseau's general will possible. Has the criticism addressed so far against the general will been misdirected? Should it be applied, not to Rousseau's elaborate notion of the general will, but rather to the condition of its possibility?2
1) Three Versions of the General Will
It seems to me that at least three different meanings or versions of "the general will" can be identified in The Social Contract. Each of these forms of the general will can be distinguished in terms of its subject (that which does the willing), its object (that which is willed), and its relationship to the "private will."3 The best place to begin in order to identify and compare these three different forms is with that version of the general will that I will characterize as "ideal."
The following is a chart demonstrating the similarities and differences of the 3 types of General Will, using the distinctions mentioned above:
Subject - That
which does the
willing. Object - That which is
willed. Relation to the Private Will.
Ideal General
Will Hypothetical
contract with all
members of
society. General Good - The
means to a particular
social end. Therefore
there are multiple
objects. No necessary relation to the
Private Will.
Originary
General Will Actual contract
with all members of
society. General Good. General and Private Will are
necessarily identical in terms
of their various objects.
Actual
General Will Majority of the
members of
society. Not necessarily the
General Good. Relationship is completely
undetermined.
A) "Ideal" General Will
This form of the general will is "general" in terms of its object. The object that is willed is the "general good,"
which is the good of all--"the general interest" (SC 155). The generality of this object is its applicability to all
the willing subjects in a given society. Whatever is willed must be in the best interests of every member of this
group; its good effects must extend to all of them universally. But, for Rousseau, there are two possible types
of "the general good" which can be willed in a way that will satisfy this requirement: the good which is the
universal end of a society; and the "goods" which are the particular means to that singular end. The object of
the ideal form of the general will is the latter (SC 153, 158-159). The ideal general will wills all of the
particular means that are required to reach the end which is posited as a society's telos.
Thus, there are actually multiple objects belonging to this form of the general will. Each one corresponds to a
different moment in the history of a society as it confronts diverse challenges and opportunities along the way
to its final general good. For Rousseau, all the means that lead to that end constitute the particular goods--with
universal applicability--which are the successive objects of the ideal general good. Each constitutes, in its own
particular moment, the general good of a society which ought to be willed by all the members of that society.
But Rousseau acknowledges that this form of the general will may not always be found "generally" in all of
those subjects. In fact, at any given moment it may not be actually willed by any subjects at all; but he does not
think that would make any difference. In his presentation of this type of general will Rousseau relies
(implicitly) upon a Platonic distinction between the "ideal" and the "actual." He insists that the real existence of
this form of the general will--the reality of its object, and the reality of the subject's obligation to will that
object--would remain the same, "constant, unalterable and pure," even if that will were completely unactualized
in practice (SC 204). The ideal general will is an ideal form. At any given moment, its particular object cannot
necessarily be located through empirical observation, for it is not guaranteed to exist in actuality. Determining
this object is a strictly rational project that requires locating oneself, as a member of a society, in the light of
that society's overall telos, and then making decisions about particular means to that end in terms of what one
honestly knows to be the general good. What complicates this process most of all is the fact that there is no
necessary correspondence between the object of the ideal general will and what Rousseau calls "the private
will." The private will always has a particular subject: each individual in the society (SC 177). And its object is
always the uniquely private good of that particular subject. "[E]ach individual can, as a man, have a private will
contrary to or different from the general will that he has as a citizen. His private interest can speak to him in an
entirely different manner than the common interest" (SC 150). All the private wills of the members of a society
taken together constitute the "will of all," whose reality, (as opposed to that of the ideal general will), is always
strictly empirical. "There is often a great deal of difference between the will of all and the general will. The
latter considers only the general interest, whereas the former considers private interest and is merely the sum of
private wills" (SC 155). Conflict between the two is inevitable. The private will "acts constantly against the
general will," Rousseau states categorically at one point in The Social Contract (SC 192). At other times he
allows that "it is not impossible for a private will to be in accord on some point with the general will"; but he
quickly adds, "it is impossible at least for this accord to be durable and constant" (SC 153). The subjects of the
ideal general will are always going to be particular, individual citizens, but because it must contend for those
subjects against the private will, the general will may not even win a majority. Thus, the ideal general will's
objective generality, which is a function of its ideal nature, will not necessarily correspond to an empirical,
subjective generality.
B) "Originary" General Will
But Rousseau also speaks of the general will as something that is "general" both objectively and subjectively. It
is necessary for this "originary" form of the general will to exist prior to the general will in its ideal form in
order to give the latter its normative strength, and also in order to give the society whose good is to be willed a
just foundation. There must be some stage in the overall history of the general will, Rousseau argues, when the
general good of a society is necessarily willed generally by all the subjects in that society.4
Such a subjective generality is possible only when the object of the general will is identical with the various
objects of the private will. What each individual wants to will as his or her own individual good must be made
to agree perfectly with what all the people ought to will as the general good of their whole society.5 The
moment when all of these objects are identical is the moment of a society's origination; upon it Rousseau will
build his entire state. He explains this moment in an extremely important paragraph from Book II, Chapter
IV, that deserves extensive commentary:
The commitments that bind us to the body politic are obligatory only because they are mutual, and their nature is such
that in fulfilling them one cannot work for someone else without also working for oneself. Why is the general will
always right, and why do all constantly want the happiness of each of them, if not because everyone applies the word
each to himself and thinks of himself as he votes for all? This proves that the quality of right and the notion of justice it
produces are derived from the preference each person gives himself, and thus from the nature of man; that the general
will, to be really such, must be general in its object as well as in its essence; that it must derive from all in order to be
applied to all; and that it loses its natural rectitude when it tends toward any individual, determinate object. For then,
judging what is foreign to us, we have no true principle of equity to guide us (SC 157).
Here Rousseau explains how right, justice, obligation, and social stability are all framed by the original
agreement of general and private will. This agreement permits one to trace social relations back to an interest
which is selfish--but not purely selfish. It is, at the same time, social, since its object is simultaneously the good
of the whole and the good of each individual. However, it is more than just a fortunate coincidence that
permits us to trace the genealogy of a society back to this agreement. Without it, Rousseau argues, no society is
possible at all. There is no other way of founding a society. Lacking an originary agreement or contract' which
permits the general will to be general both subjectively and objectively, there would be "no true principle of
equity to guide us." Right and justice could not be grounded; the Rousseauan state could never get underway.
Original general will allows the state to get underway by founding the social contract. The agreement between
general and private will is, in essence, a "proto-social contract" because it already constitutes a people.6 It
unites individuals in a situation which is mutually advantageous for all, where "one cannot work for someone
else without also working for oneself." In such a situation the "quality of right and the notion of justice it
produces" can be derived from the only sure and stable source: "the preference each person gives himself, and
thus from the nature of man." When a group's private interests and its general interest can be made to intersect
so perfectly, there is no longer anything standing in the way of their formation as a society. In this agreement,
the essential gesture of constitution has already taken place; all that remains is to work out the contractual
formalities.
This is where the social contract proper enters. It is commonly assumed that the only foundation of a
Rousseauan society is the social contract;7 but Rousseau explicitly denies this. While the social contract does in
fact serve "as a foundation for all other rights" he argues, "[n]evertheless, this right does not come from nature.
It is therefore founded upon convention" (SC 141). The main convention which supports and structures society
is itself based upon another convention. The general nature of all conventions ought to be such that they must
be equally beneficial to each of the parties that enters into them (SC 146-147). Concerning the social contract
in particular, Rousseau says that it requires a founding convention which will make possible that each subject,
"while uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before" (SC 148). The
convention which can satisfy all of these requirements, and thus successfully found the social contract, is the
agreement of the general and the private will on the telos of society. This telos is the "common good" which is
the "purpose for which [the state] was instituted" (SC 153). It is the "cause" that "each people has within
itself," which "organizes them in a particular way and renders its legislation proper for it alone" (SC 171).
Individuals in a society must be made to see the telos which is in the best interest of the entire group as
something that is also in their best interest individually and privately. Agreement on that end allows a society to
begin. For if the opposition of private interests made necessary the establishment of societies, it is the accord
of these same interests that made it possible. It is what these different interests have in common that forms the
social bond, and, were there no point of agreement among all these interests, no society could exist. For it is
utterly on the basis of this common interest that society ought to be governed (SC 153). By positing this form
of the general good as its unitary object, originary general will clears the way for the ideal general will to
follow, willing the various general goods that are the means to that end. In the history of a state, the ideal form
of the general will first emerges when the newly constituted society moves the focus of its deliberations from
the singular end which it has projected ahead of itself to the particular means which are required in order to get
to that end. At this point the correspondence between private and general will ceases, and thus, "[u]nanimity no
longer reigns in the votes; the general will is no longer the will of all" (SC 204). Thus, both the ideal and the
originary general will have the general good as their object, but not the same form of the general good. The
objects of the ideal general will are multiple, transitory, and dependent on the single object of the originary
general will, which arises from the original agreement of private and general will that founds the state.
This foundational general will is constant even if the ideal general will that follows after it is not. This
follows because each individual's private will continues to be tied up in the original general will, and
individuals cannot ignore their private interest. "Each man, in detaching his interest from the common interest,
clearly sees that he cannot totally separate himself from it... Apart from this private good, he wants the general
good in his own interest [which is the object of original general will], just as strongly as anyone else" (SC 204).
While all subjects ought to will according to ideal general will, they cannot help but will the original general
will. To do otherwise would be to deny their rational, self-interested natures. Rousseau, who insists that his
arguments are based on "reason" and "the nature of things," denies that such a modification of human nature is
possible (SC 146). He allows that humans are eminently capable of resisting the general good when it is
opposed to their own interest: this is the reason why the ideal general will does not necessarily enjoy subjective
generality. But when the general good appears in the guise of the private good, humans necessarily will it--
perhaps without realizing it; perhaps in spite of themselves.
Such constancy is possible, of course, only as long as the original agreement between private and
general will is preserved. As long as this correspondence between general and private will continues, it
functions as the ultimate source of a society's vitality, "the true constitution of the state" (SC 172). This
enduring, foundational general will is the "law" which is,
the most important of all. It is not engraved on marble or bronze, but in the hearts of citizens... Everyday it takes on
new forces. When other laws grow old and die away, it revives and replaces them, preserves a people in the spirit of its
institution and imperceptibly substitutes the force of habit for that of authority... [It is] a part of the law unknown to our
political theorists but one on which depends the success of all the others; a part with which the great legislator secretly
occupies himself (SC 172).
But once the agreement of the general and the private will is shattered, society loses its foundation, and has no
guarantee of continuing. Rousseau seems to be saying that a state will persist just as long as its originary
general will remains constant, but dissolve as soon as it changes.
C) "Actual" General Will
Rousseau appears to recognize yet a third form of the general will in The Social Contract. This form is simply
the empirical will of the majority. "After this primitive contract [the social contract]," he says, "the vote of the
majority always obligates all the others" (SC 206; see also 150). Thus, returning to the Platonic distinction
between the ideal and the actual, we can describe this third form as the "actual" general will. It is simply
whatever a society's simple majority manifests at any given moment.8
This type of general will would therefore seem to be general only in a subjective sense, (and then just to the
point of a simple majority). Contrasted with the ideal general will, which is thought to exist even if no subjects
will it, this form of will clearly has no existence whatsoever without willing subjects. But its subjective
generality need not be universal; it only requires a simple majority. In addition, this manifestation of the
general will would not require a general object. The majority need not will what is in the interest of the whole,
or even what is in the interest of itself as a majority, (since conflict with individual private wills may thwart
even that). The object of the general will in this form would not have to agree at all with the object of the ideal
general will, but, on the other hand, neither would it have to agree with the objects of the private will, (in the
way that the original general will does). Its relationship with the private will would remain completely
undetermined, as would its relationship with the object of the (ideal) general will. So it is clear that this is in
fact a distinct form of the general will. It differs from the two previous forms in all of the key areas on which
we have focused our attention: its subject, its object, and its relation to the private will. What is perhaps most
interesting to notice in Rousseau's treatment of the actual general will, however, is the fact that he seems to
believe that it will not, in practice, constitute a significantly different form of the general will than the ideal
general will. He thinks that in a healthy society, what the ideal general will requires for an object will be
realized in an actual majority vote. Thus, confounding Plato, the actual would collapse back into the ideal--or
rather, the ideal would never fail to be actualized.
Rousseau's assumption seems to be that so long as a society remains founded...
MLA Style
. EssayMania.com. Retrieved on 12 Feb, 2012 from
<http://essaymania.com/139531/rousseau-s-general-will>
More College Papers
Child Abuse
Child Abuse - The physical or emotional abuse of a child by a parent, guardian, or other person
Child abuse makes for one of the most controversial subject matters in the United States today. Being that there are so many different forms of child abuse, many people seems to draw their own conclusion
The Foods Of Italy
ITALIAN FOOD
It is no accident that Italian cooking is so popular, for this is a cuisine rich in flavor and depth. A very little known fact is that Italian cookery is nothing like what we here in America think it is. Authentic Italian cooking is very different than what we eat here, in fact, it is
Lat Of The Mohicans
Last Of The Mohicans was a action packed novel that leaves readers
wanting more. James Fennimore Cooper did a wonderful job at recreating the
era of this story. This novel is a romantic story based in the leather-stocking
region of New York. The main character Hawk-eye is a free spirited white