Jean Jacques Rousseau was not the first person to embrace the social contract theory, but he is well-known for taking the philosophical ideas of Hobbes and Locke and expounding on them in "The Social Contract". There is little doubt that the American and French revolutions were justified on just such thinking as Rousseau's. Although discarded in part or whole by many political and social scientists as being relevant in the 21st century, it may be argued that Rousseau's theories are just as relevant today-or should be-as they were in the 18th century. Rousseau asserted that the original and only natural society that exists is that of the family unit. Taking this thought one step further, Rousseau asserted that the ruler or people in power in a society corresponded to the role of the father within the family in the original society.
In today's society the family unit is so often broken; even families with two parents generally have both parents working outside the home. Many families are single parented with the mother being the head of the household. Taking Rousseau's thoughts on the corresponding roles of fathers and those who govern, it would follow that the lack of fathers and the debased structure of the natural family/society explains much of the lack of respect shown to authority, both juvenile and adult. If one never has a father or the father is not playing a traditional family role, it follows that the transference of respect and honor traditionally given to the father is not there for the individual to make to those in power.
In considering the thoughts presented by Rousseau, there are two things to reflect upon that bring the conclusions of Frodeman and Mitcham into question. A contract is not necessarily a written document, nor even a number of delineated rules or stipulations. Contract, in the sense of science and politics, speaks more to an understood relationship between the two communities. Rousseau also never stated that it was contract alone by which citizens, politicians, scientists, or any other group lived, but rather that the contract was the basis for society.
Democracy in just any form was not what Rousseau advocated. Rousseau also felt that citizens involved in government were subject to corruption from their natural concerns for themselves first, others second. It was the ideal of democracy that Rousseau prized, but he felt human nature being what it is would thwart the pureness of the democratic state. He often referred to Greece and Rome and their democratic forms of government, states which assembled their citizens often for public discourse, but even those two prime examples of his vision of democracy fell to the wayside.
Perhaps the most famous social contract in history was the one signed by thirty-nine men September 17, 1787: the United States Constitution. The Constitution underwent a ratification process throughout the original states; it was these actions through which the people of those states "consented to the Constitution as the law of the land"-- the social contract by which the government promised to protect its citizens' civil liberties and the best interests of the nation and the citizens agreed to limited governance of the people. Just as Rousseau never contended that a social contract had to be a document, he also didn't say that it had to be an unchanging, stagnant agreement. The U.S. Constitution has been anything but stagnant, with its amendments and interpretations by the federal supreme court. What the people agreed to has changed over time, as have government responsibilities and expectations.
Rousseau was a proponent of pure democracy, viewing it as the ultimate social contract. During the founding of America, with the give and take between those in charge and the citizens of the states, would certainly have given him pleasure. There are some who believe the experiment that is America has gone awry over time, with the government having less limitations to its powers and the citizens participating in smaller numbers and degrees than the majority-and Rousseau would no doubt be disappointed as well. It can be argued that the social contract as Rousseau envisioned it-democracy-is a flawed theory by pointing to the current displeasure of a great many American citizens with the war in Iraq, warrantless wiretapping, and the executive branch's definition of torture, but in response, the counter argument could be that the theory itself isn't flawed, but rather the manner in which it has been played out.
Rousseau's belief that the majority may not always be right and that the minority must be protected and given voice to was played out best in America during the civil rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s. It was then that the nation as a whole came to grips with the inequality of education, job availability, and housing. Affirmative action mandates would have fit Rousseau's theories well. The most controversial portion of Rousseau's social contract theory was his thoughts on religion and its place in society. So controversial was it at the time of publication that Geneva suppressed The Social Contract. Initially, Rousseau did not provide the chapter on religion to his publisher; it was months later before he made the decision to do so. Because the philosopher so deeply believed that an individual would not do the right thing without being in a collective group, he also felt that the group would be positive influenced by religious ideals.
What made the Rousseau's theories so daring in his time was that he advocated that the birth of Christianity destroyed the harmony in which the various countries had lived prior to the emergence of the faith. His belief was that prior to Christianity, people of different regions worshiped different gods, but that all peoples, even the Jews of Israel, accepted the right of other people to worship their god(s) as they saw fit, and that the god(s) had domain only over the people who worshiped them-not other regions or their peoples. Christianity changed that. Christians, Rousseau believed, were more interested in eternal salvation than in the state of the state; their allegiance was divided between this world and the next at best. In addition, Christians, due to their "good" ethics would be prey to the less ethical citizens.
The fundamental belief of Christianity that there are two domains: one here on earth, which man rules, and the other an ethereal eternity which is ruled by God Rousseau viewed as an ambiguity. Which should a man, a society obey? How can a society be an ordered one when its citizens are unsure whether to follow law or canon?
The philosopher felt there were three kinds of religions: the religion of the citizen, the religion of man, and the religion of the priests. He disdains the religion of the citizen, describing it as where each state has its own god(s), which provides for stability within that state, but can cause the people to war with other states who worship other god(s). This would seem a contradiction to what Rousseau himself had earlier stated about theocratic societies.
The religion of man, Rousseau explains, is quite the opposite of the religion of citizens. Here, where people espouse universal peace and brotherhood, there is no state-to-state discord, but also nothing of a religious nature to pull each state's citizens together. And, in the end, men are not saints, they are men given to the frailties of human nature and thus need political institutions. There is little that has been as hotly debated as the place of religion in government in America. The Constitution provides for separation of church and state. Until the mid 20th century that was interpreted as religious freedom. Since that time there have been challenges to that interpretation, and mentions of God have been removed from the Pledge of Allegiance as well as forbidding of religious statues and decorations being on government property. There are those citizens who would argue that since "God" has been removed, the moral fiber of the U.S. has suffered. Rousseau would undoubtedly agree with those people.
Like many philosophies, some portions of Rousseau's social contract have stood the test of time and some others have not. Some of his more basic premises, such as man being a social creature and needing to live within a society-and such a society needs rules and order-would be hard to argue with. The details of his theory are more problematic as being universal, but to say that just because contemporary American society doesn't practice the details of Rousseau's social contract that the contract itself is wrong would be in error. Philosophers, politicians, scientists, economists and others will be long pondering Rousseau's thoughts.
Read more of John Halasz's articles. For writing and editing services, call John Halasz at (716) 579-5984.
No comments:
Post a Comment