Addendum
In the Social Contract reading guide, I completely forgot to mention the other phrase from Monday's reading assignment that ranks among the most famous we'll encounter in the course--in this case, also the most infamous. It's in the last paragraph of chapter VII: "This means merely that he will be forced to be free.
This should trouble you. How is it possible that we could say someone could be "forced to be free"? What could Rousseau possibly mean?
As a way of jump-starting a discussion Monday, I'd love to see as many of you as possible give your best explanation for what you think Rousseau means by "forced to be free." Does this phrase make any sense to you? Post your answers here please!
posted by David Watkins @ 2:31 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Well, here is my take on what he means by being forced to be free:
Rousseau talks about there being two kinds of freedom. One of them was freedom in the sense that you could do whatever you wanted, like an animal and people were like this before there was society, etc. (sometimes he calls it following your particular will)
The other kind is the civil kind of liberty, where you are sort of raised out of your degraded status into a complete human being. This means following the general will or looking after what benefits everyone in society, not just you.
So being forced to be free would mean that there would be laws against behaving like a lawless brute, or, if you were mistaken about what you thought the general will was, the majority could make you go along with it.
It's sort of the same idea involved like when you vote for the candidate you think is best, but then he loses... you still have to abide by the decision and be ruled by the candidate that wins and if you said, no I'm not obeying because my candidate didn't win and I don't agree with this government, the majority has the right to force you to be free... to obey the law.
oops, the above comment was by me.
-Chet
My interpretation is that in entering into the social contract individuals surrender their private wills to the general will or the public good. Since the sovereign of a state is not a person but the general will, the sovereign can never do anything that is not also in the interest of its subjects. Some individuals might think their interest to be different from the general interest but they have to be forced to obey to the general will because in the end it will be better for everybody, even the forced individual. If an individual were to break the social contract, then all people would return to the state of nature in which everybody has the right to everything that physical force can secure. Even for the individual in opposition to the general will it will be better to be forced to go along because in the end he or she will be guaranteed the rules of civil society (for example civil liberty). All individuals must abide by the rules of the social contract because otherwise it becomes void or at least more prone to abuse. I guess an example would be that if the general will decides that primary education should be compulsory even people who oppose this law should abide by it because they or their children will benefit from being educated, society will benefit, and if they don’t abide by it they weaken the political system and decision making process.
Johanna
In the prior paragraph, Rousseau states that an individual can think whatever he wants as an individual, but as a citizen, he must obey the laws created by other citizens and himself. He is, as a citizen, then "forced to be free" because he cannot just think of his self interest alone, but that of a "society" or a "nation" as well. He is forced to think and do what is best for the rest of citizens which collectively desires to be "free".
Post a Comment
<< Home