What's wrong with Rosseau's The General Will - Essay Example

Rousseau’s General will A controversial French philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau focused most of his writings on modern thoughts regarding politics, education and literature. Born in 1712, Rousseau spent most of his life in Italy, Switzerland and France where he worked as a secretary, later as a tutor and finally as a music teacher. Rousseau spent most of his time observing the society and its organization. Through this, he realized how artificial and unfair aristocrats treated the common man. Years after intense thoughts and observation, he wrote a book, “The social Contract”. In his book, he stated the origins of governments and their laws, arguing that no law was binding unless the people agree to it (Wraight 2009, p. 34). This book stimulated French thinking and became a driving force for the French revolution thirty years after its release. The general will The will can only direct the State forces to maintain its obligations, “the common good”, because if the resistance of the private interest makes it possible for societies to be established, then the harmony of the same interests makes it possible. The common thing between these different interests creates the social bond; and if there was no similar interest, then society could not have been formed. Therefore, the state should govern the society only with this common interest. This quote comes from Rousseau’s book; the Social Contract. He understands that people usually have different interests but declares that there is always a common interest on which people can consent in principle. Indeed, everyone may have a will that differs from the general will, but by voting, the state can ascertain a general will. What is wrong with Rousseau’s “The General Will?” In the case where what is viewed as a common good is not reached, the state refers the voting to an assembly of the community, which is democratic. This may occur because every individual has their own self interest in the general will. Therefore, the majority in the voting can generate a wrong general will. The general will is not a property of the community, rather a property of each individual within the community. A general will looks at the general interests of common citizens. Ideas on the general will There is always a common interest among conflicting parties Through voting, governments can generate the common interest that accommodates the needs of a majority of its citizens The majority may come up with a falsified general will Criticism of the general will Following these arguments of the general will, Rousseau contends that when rulers govern their societies according to the general will, the freedom of each individual is assured. This notion is untrue because the general will only takes the common good of a majority of citizens, which it assumes is the interest of each individual. Every individual in the society has unique interests that the general will cannot fulfill. Therefore, the general will offers a simple solution for governments to fulfill the major needs of the community where individual interests cannot be fulfilled. During voting, individuals consider their best interests before subordinating their personal wills to the general will. When they fail to win, then the general will fails to fulfill their individual will. Rousseau admits that votes contribute less into making the general will, and that the uniting interest is a major contributor. It is then clear that the common uniting interest may fail to be the interest of each individual, and that is what makes the general will. Rousseau admits that there is a difference between the “will of all” and the “general will” He says that people do not always vote in ways that agree with the common interest due to social inequalities and related factors. Because of this, the will of all may disagree with the general will. In such circumstances, a law-giver comes up with a solution. The law-giver designs favorable social institutions that instill virtues and a sense of collective purpose. The general will contradicts Rousseau’s famous quote of freedom that despite being born free, man walks around in chains. The general will should leave every individual as free as they were before the will, if people see it as a solution to their basic problems (McDonal &Hoffmann 2010, pp. 62-89). This is a problem with the general will because it constraints the pursuit of the individual’s good. Rousseau distinguished three freedom senses: moral freedom, civil freedom and the natural freedom. As natural creatures living in natural states, we loose the natural freedom because we become interdependent when we live by the general will. People can only claim to have natural freedom when they obey principles that they have given themselves. However, when they obey principles that the general will provides, they fail to be naturally free. Moral freedom on the other hand disposes an individual to act only according to the laws they have imposed upon themselves. Therefore, someone can have moral freedom even while in prison. Rousseau argues that someone acquires moral liberty in a civil society. For example, he says that a man is under slavery when he is driven by appetite because he may satisfy the desire against his own will. This argument is controversial because there are many instances when desire overpowers the will but it is still in the best interest of the individual and cannot be counted as slavery. For example, a person may decide not to smoke. This is his will. However, the desire to smoke overpowers the will and he ends up smoking. In this case, the person is driven by the desire alone and is therefore not a slave to desire. In any case, this situation may mean that the person is enslaved by the desire to smoke as this is not his will. However, slavery is not the ultimate explanation because the individual may decide not to smoke in an attempt to obtain moral freedom. Therefore, an individual can achieve moral freedom anywhere in the state of nature and not necessarily under a civil society. To ensure that the social impact has meaning, Rousseau commends “the whole body” to compel anyone who refuses to obey the general will into doing so. Through this, the general will forces the individual to be free, and protects the person against personal dependence. This explains why the general will fails to be compatible with freedom and instead, remains its realization. That the individual must obey the laws which he gave to himself. The general will secures personal freedom by making the individual non-dependent on the specific will of others. Is the general will oppressive? The central idea in the notion of general will is the interests of the majority. Therefore, it excludes the wills of the minority, which many people interpret as oppression because they are forced to follow the decision of the majority (Sharma & Sharma 2006, p. 51). According to Rousseau, everyone, (including the minority) usually wills the common will but remain mistaken about its content. By this, he maintains that the minority usually get what they want by obeying the general will. This is disputable because sometimes people may have intrusive ideas regarding the welfare of others. If such people are the majority, then the general will becomes oppressive and fails to maximize equal freedom. The assumption of the general will is that common good entails shared interests of all community members. Though this is true, one may as well see the general will as a set of solutions that governments tailor in order to provide solutions to social conflicts. Similarly, they can be requirements of justice that governments use whenever interests conflict. Rousseau believes that under a democratic government, the correct general will is picked. Though this is true, a democratic government can be oppressive and a non democratic government may seek the best interest of its citizens. Rousseau cannot conclude that a democratic government will definitely seek the common interest of it citizens. Conclusion In conclusion, it is important to note the central ideas surrounding the general will. For a will to be considered general, it must be obtained from a common interest of the people. Therefore, it is a solution to the problem of social contract. He argues that the problem of governments is finding an association that defends and protects the interests of each individual member of the society through a common force. The solution should enable the individual to unite himself with all members of the society yet still obey his own rules and maintain his freedom. There are several problems identified within the general will. One of them is that the general will is itself oppressive especially to the minority who are forced to live by it. If someone contends his will to the general will but he remains in the minority group, the person is forced to live by what the majority wills. Similarly, the general will forces individual to be free. Rousseau argues that by obeying the general will, people obey the laws which they have placed on themselves. This is based on the assumption that even when one votes against the general will, it still works to their advantage. In addition to these, the will of the people does not always support the general will. Rousseau recognizes the difference between the will of all and the general will. He agrees that people do not always vote in favor of the common interest. This, he attributes to factions such as lack of collective membership and social inequality References Wraight D. Christopher, 2009, Rousseau’s The Social contract: a reader’s guide, Continuum International Publishing group, New York. McDonal, Christie., & Hoffmann, Stanley., 2010, Rousseau and freedom, Cambirdge University Press, Cambridge. Scott, T. John., 2006, ‘Jean-Jacques Rousseau,’ Political principles and institutions, Taylor & Francis, New York. Sharma, Urmila., & Sharma, S.K., 2006, Western Political Thought, Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, Atlantic City. Neidelman, A. Jason., 2001, ‘The general will is citizenship,’ inquiries into French political thought, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, New Hampshire. Luther, C. Timothy., 2010, ‘Hegel’s Critique of Modernity,’ Reconciling individual freedom and the Community, Lexington books, New York. Read More