Transformation of society: Democracy, Liberty and Freedom (Part-I)

Reviewing famous book ‘The Social Contract’ by J.J Rousseau Rousseau, J.-J., & In Frankel, C. (1947). The social contract. New York: Hafner Pub. Co.

Jean Jacques Rousseau was famous Geneva based philosopher and political theorist. His writings are very popular even today because he had contributed during the age of renaissance through his political philosophy. He was influenced from the writings of Montesquieu, Voltaire and John Locke, who were the renowned faces of the enlightenment era. Likewise, the writings of J.J Rousseau influenced the great philosophers of the 18^th and 19^th century such as Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, Hegel and David Hume. Social contract was one his important political philosophy, which he formulated in long Drafts, the Book-I include I-V chapters, which are as follow:

Introduction

Whether the man should be taken in the way they are or the laws that made him the way he is not? In contrast, the right to vote upon men is sufficient to impose on him the duty of informing themselves about them; and I feel happy about them when I dig and what gives me satisfaction for loving the country of my own. J.J Rousseau commenced the introduction with these clichés. Here, J.J Rousseau opened the discourse of men and society in certain paradigm, either it is men or society, which resembles the progress. Basically, Rousseau opened the discourse in the following way:

Chapter I: the subject of the First Book

What Rousseau famously said: “Man is born free but he is in chains”—Many or one believes himself as the master of others and yet he is a greater slave they who do not proclaim. The man can shake it off, if men recover their freedom by the virtue of the same right by which it was once taken away. Indeed, Social order is a sacred right, which serves as the foundation for all other rights. However, this right does not come from nature rather through convention, which is essence of every kind of social contract.

Chapter II: Primitive Societies

Among the earliest of all primitive societies, only family remained the natural one, in which children were attached to their father and were obedient as long as they need it for their preservation. And as this need ceases, the natural bond dissolved and the children freed from the obedience and they asserted freedom from the natural bond. On the contrary, if they remained united, then it was not based on natural bond rather voluntarily. Thus, the family also remained united through conventions. This common liberty is the consequence of human nature. The first is to attend his own preservation and the first care was just about him. When his preservation is guaranteed, then he becomes his own master—the family system in a nut shell was a kind of statehood, but the only difference was; in family, the father’s love for his children repays him for the care that he bestows upon them; while in the state, the pleasure or ruling makes up for the chief lacks of love for his people.

Famous Jurist and philosopher, Hugo Grotius denies that all human authority is established for the benefits of governed and he cited the example of slavery. Because, during the age of slavery, a just method was employed to favor the tyrant or ruler—Grotius was doubtful whether human race belong to hundred men or the hundred men belong to human race. For Grotius, in this way, we have the mankind divided like herd of cattle’s, each of which has master. Just as herd man is superior in nature to his herd, so chiefs, who are herdsmen of men, are superior in nature to their people. According to Philo account, it was Emperor Caligula who asserted and reasoned, by declaring an analogy that kings are Gods and that all men are brutish. Likewise, he continued that men’s are not equal naturally because some are born for slavery and some are born to rule or to dominate (Primitive analogy).

Aristotle was right that every man born in slavery is for slavery because slaves lose everything in their bond. They love their servitude as the champion of Ulysses loved their brutishness. If then, there are slaves by nature, it is because there have been slaves contrary to nature. Moreover, the first slaves were made by such a force and their cowardice kept them in bondage.

Chapter III: The Right of the Strongest

The strongest man is never strong enough to be always master until he transforms his power into right and obedience into duty. To yield to force is an act of necessity not of will that means the right of the strongest is bond to certain principle. Thus, if force constitutes the right, the effect changes with the cause, and any force which overcomes the first, succeeds to its right. If it is necessary to obey from the duty; and if men are no longer force to obey, obligation is at an end. We see then, this word Right adds nothing to Force; it is here means nothing at all. Let us agree then that might does not make right and that we are bound to obey none but lawful authorities.

Chapter IV: Slavery

Men have no natural authority over his fellow men. If an individual says Grotius, can alienate his liberty and becomes the slave of masters; why not all the people alienate theirs, by becoming the subject of one king. To alienate means to sell or give and or a person alienate himself from subsistence. That means a despot secures to his subject as a civil peace. But, this tranquility often becomes their misery, when despot declares war and snatch back their civil peace and liberty. In this case, the whole nation is the nation of fools. Therefore, the only solution seems here is an arbitrary authority and arbitrary government might be legitimate and it would be necessary that people in all generations should have the option of accepting or rejecting it. Likewise, to renounce one’s liberty is to renounce one’s quality as man, the right and also the duties of humanity. For him, who renounce everything does not have any compensation and such renunciation is incompatible with men’s nature, for to take all freedom from his will is to take away all morality from his actions. Thus, in short, a convention which stipulates absolute authority on one hand and unlimited obedience on the other is in vain and contradictory.

On the other hand, Grotius is giving another account of slavery from war, when victor grants freedom to the vanquished in exchange for their life; which he says as ‘Legitimate agreement’—the Cross limitation of the argument. It was Louis IX; the King of France, who authorized the private wars just to defend his state and empire—which was not ‘Just’ and ‘peaceful’ in the discourse of social contract. In this regard, this was solely aimed at establishing the authority over the right of life and death upon the right of the slavery, and the right of slavery upon the right of life and death. But in whatever regard, the right of slavery is invalid, not only because it is illegitimate rather it was absurd and meaningless. The agreement of this kind would be foolish that: “I make an agreement with you wholly at your expanse and wholly for my benefits, and I shall observe it as long as I please, while you shall observe it as long as I please”. In contrast, the fact cannot be denied that ‘There is no natural justification available for slavery’.

Comments

[Wahid]

*Excellent review

[Wahid]

Excellent reviwe rahim. It is just exciting