3.b.1. Total alienation

In Book 1, Chapter 6, Rousseau writes that the social contract involves “the total alienation [see Glossary] of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community” (Social Contract, I, 6 [p.7]). In the glossary, the translator explains that “To alienate something that you own is to bring it about that you no longer own it; in brief, to give it away or sell it.” So, the social contract gives the community as a whole complete authority over you and everything that is yours.

Quentin, Maurice (Artist). 18th century.

But why should the alienation be total? Why shouldn’t you keep some rights...

But why should the alienation be total? Why shouldn’t you keep some rights? Let’s examine the three reasons Rousseau gives.

“(i) Because each individual gives himself entirely, what is happening here for any one individual is the same as what is happening for each of the others, and, because this is so, no-one has any interest in making things tougher for everyone but himself.” (Social Contract, I, 6 [p.7])

What does Rousseau mean by “making things tougher”? He is probably thinking that you might think that it would be good to keep some individual rights to protect yourself against other people in society. Rousseau thinks that would be a mistake, because those same rights would also have to be granted to others, which would make it more difficult for you (or society) to prevent those others from exercising those rights in a way that would harm you (or anyone else). 

Rousseau’s view is that it is better to give society permission to do whatever is necessary to protect each member’s safety and possessions.

“(ii) … [I]f the individuals retained certain rights…, each individual would be his own judge in the first case that came up, and this would lead him to ask to be his own judge across the board; this would continue the state of nature, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.” (Social Contract, I, 6 [p.7])

This quote tells us more about what it means, according to Rousseau, for you to retain certain rights. If you retain a right, then not only do you have this right, but you are also the judge of whether or not the right has been violated and what punishment would be suitable. This is more than what I think most people today have in mind when we think of an individual having certain rights that limit the power of the government. For example, consider the right to not be subjected to arbitrary arrest. If you live in a country that recognises this right, then you have this right, but only because society has agreed that you should have this right. Further, you are not the judge of whether your right against arbitrary arrest has been violated; the courts are. 

 “(iii) Each man in giving himself to everyone gives himself to no-one; and •the right over himself that the others get is matched by •the right that he gets over each of them. So he gains as much as he loses, and also gains extra force for the preservation of what he has.” (Social Contract, I, 6 [p.7])

DNY59/iStock/GettyImagesPlus

If the alienation were less than total, then individual members would still retain some ability to dominate other members.

 Rousseau is particularly concerned about the possibility that one person will be able to dominate another person—for example, that someone will coercively impose something on you that is part of their particular will. Rousseau wants to give himself to no-one, meaning that he wants to be in a position where he cannot be dominated by anyone (and likewise, no one can be dominated by him). 

The argument is that if everyone is at the mercy of the whole society as a collective, then the collective uses its power to do two things: internally within society, the power is used to make sure that no one dominates anyone else; externally, the power is used to defend against attack. If the alienation were less than total, then individual members would still retain some ability to dominate other members.

From all of this, we see that there are limits on what the government is allowed to do. It is not allowed to act on the basis of any particular will, such as the particular (individual) will of the lead or the particular (group) will of the rich. The aim of government action must be based on the general will. The general will is about our common interests—whether we know them or not. There are no limits on how the government is allowed to achieved that aim. It is allowed to do whatever is necessary in order to achieve what is in the common interest.