3.c.1. The will of all

 

 

book

Readings for this lecture:

John Rousseau, The Social Contract, revised edition

  • Book 2, chapters 1, 3, 6, 7 (until “sanctity of his work.”)
  • Book 4, chapter 1
 

 

Since the sovereign is everyone in the society considered as a whole—meaning that political authority belongs to each and every member of society, we might think that to find out what the general will is, we simply need to have everyone vote. This is not correct. The general will is what is in the common interest. This is a matter of fact. It may or may not be known to most people. From Book 2, Chapter 3:

“[T]he general will is always in the right and always works for the public good; but it doesn’t follow that the people’s deliberations are always equally correct. Our will is always for our own good, but we don’t always see what that is; the populace is never corrupted, but it is often deceived, and then—but only then—it seems to will something bad.” (Social Contract, II, 3 [p.14])

Because of this, Rousseau distinguishes between the general will and “the will of all”. If most people in a society don’t see what is in their common interest, then the sum of all their wills—that is, the will of all—will not be the general will. Rousseau thinks that there are ways to try to make sure that the will of all is the general will.

ballot

“If the general will is to emerge clearly it’s important that there should be no partial society within the state, and that each citizen should think only his own thoughts…. And if there are partial societies, it’s best to have as many as possible and to prevent them from becoming unequal….” (Social Contract, II, 3 [p.14])

Here is my interpretation of this idea. Recall that each person has common interests and private interests, and private interests are either personal or group-based.

We want to find a way to separate the common interests from the private. Rousseau claims that if each person in society is well-informed and thinks independently, the result of a vote would be the general will. I think Rousseau’s view is that when people are thinking independently, they aren’t influenced by group interests, and their personal interests are different enough that those interests don’t lead to a majority. The only explanation for why a majority of independently thinking people voted the same way is that their votes were based on correct beliefs about what really is in the common interest. And so, in those circumstances, the will of all matches up with the general will.

In contrast, imagine that people are not independent thinkers and instead form political associations based on group interests. In this case, their votes are influenced greatly by their group interests, and this influence is so significant and uniform that it can lead to a majority in a vote. In that case, the will of all does not match up with the general will, and instead matches up with a particular will that expresses the group interests of the largest group. Government action based on such a will would be wrong, because it would impose a particular will. This would violate the moral freedom of the members of society who are not part of the largest group.

Rousseau elaborates on these points in Book 4, Chapter 1. He describes a healthy society, a deteriorating society, and a broken society. Let us look at the healthy society first.

“As long as a number of men gathered together regard themselves as a single body, they have only a single will, which is concerned with the survival and well-being of all of them. In this case, the state’s … rules [are] clear and luminous; there’s no tangle of hidden agendas; the common good is always obvious….” (Social Contract, IV, 1 [p.54])

 

The healthy society is characterized by “[p]eace, unity and equality” (Social Contract, IV, 1 [p.54]). The society has unity because the members of society “regard themselves as a single body”. Being a member of society is more important to each person than being a member of any smaller group in society.

In a deteriorating society, different members see themselves as belonging to different groups that compete for political power.

“When the social bond begins to slacken…, when particular interests start to make themselves felt and the smaller societies begin to influence the larger one, the common interest changes and comes to have opponents” (Social Contract, IV, 1 [p.54])

According to Rousseau, the problem is that people start to give more weight to group interests than the common interest. That is why the common interests begins to have opponents.

In a broken society, group interests and personal interests have won completely. The common interest is neglected.

“•in every heart the social bond is broken”

“•the meanest interest brazenly helps itself to the sacred name of ‘public good’”

“all men, guided by secret motives, stop giving their views as citizens”

“wicked decrees directed solely to private interest get passed off as ‘laws’.” (Social Contract, IV, 1 [p.54])

This happens because people put their private interest before the common interest.

“Each man … sees clearly that … his pursuit of his own interests will have some negative effect on the common good·; but he sees •his share in the public misfortunes as negligible compared with •the private good that he is laying claim to.” (Social Contract, IV, 1 [p.54]) 

In a broken society, you are willing to damage society as whole in order to further your private interests. Rousseau describes this moral wrong in terms of what question citizens ask themselves when participating in politics. They ought to ask themselves whether “‘It is to the state’s advantage that such-and-such should happen’” (Social Contract, IV, 1 [p.55]). Instead, in a broken society, they ask themselves whether “‘It is to x’s advantage that such-and-such should happen’, where x is some man or faction.” (Social Contract, IV, 1 [p.55])

 

 

In order for the will of all to tell us what the general will is, each political participant must be giving their own well-informed opinion about what they think is in the common interest. They must not use their vote to try to further their personal interests or their group interests.