Jean-Jacques Rousseau and freedom as foundation of social contract

• Author: Anca Costina Gherghe
• Position: Candiate Ph.D. University of Craiova, Law and Administrative Sciences, project POSDRU/6/1.5/S/14 'Cresterea atractivitatii, calitatii si eficientei studiilor universitare de doctorat prin acordarea de burse doctorale
• Pages: 159-163

JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU AND FREEDOM AS FOUNDATION OF SOCIA L CONTRACT

Gherghe Anca Costina

Abstract

Frustr ated by the condition of the society of his time, Jea n-Jacques Rousseau attempted throughout his

work to lay the foundation of a legitimate way of esta blishing the political power, ba sed on the free will of those

who bear its effects. Individuals ca n make this happen by concluding between them a social pact thr ough which

each one ga ins civil freedom in return for giving up a pa rt of their natura l freedom.

Key words: state of natur e, social contract, freedom, equality, legitimate power.

Introduction

The po litical theor y of J ean J acques Rousseau is relevant to the evolution of freedom and security

concepts, becau se, according to his declarations, one of the purposes of the a ssociation between the individuals

in order to create the state is to gain security a nd, more than that, freedom. The socia l pact on which Rousseau

founds the creation of the state has the purpose to ensure this freedom for the individuals and to consolidate

their na tural equ ality. Therefore, it is importa nt to underline Rousseau   

the society in or der to ensure the freedom and security of its members and about the way to ca rry o ut this

through a pactum societatis, taking into consideration the difficulty a nd complexity of transferr ing a legal

concept from private law into political philoso phy.

1

According to Rousseau’s theory, the purpose of the social structure is the freedom and the security of

individuals that compose it. Here, it is interesting to emphasize the fact that the state purpose is similar to its

cause and, at the same time, to its legitimacy principle. In other words, the principle on which so ciety existence

is based, its abso lute cause is the free will of individuals that is a will necessarily built on freedom. The purpose

of the social structure is to ens ure the continuity of this freedom, which is also the sou rce of any law and the

legitimacy of state existence.2 That’s why the concept on which Rousseau’s theory regarding the state is based is

freedom because “it is incontestable and a fundamental principle of the entire political law that men have chosen

their leaders in order to defend their freedom.”3

How do es the philosopher reach this conclusion? Influenced by the social and political reality of his

time, which was completely unfavourable for the majority of the po pulation, raised against the entire feudal

regime, Roussea u criticises this state of facts, starting from the inequality created at the social level, b ecause,

from its point of view, the inequality which the society gets to live in rep resents the source of all its misfortune.

He tries thus to explain how things have “arrived to this inequality, source of social disorder between the

individuals that compo se the society at a certain moment in time, imagining the wild man state, that of the man

before the creation of t he state, and comparing him to the state of the social man. It is important to underline the

fact that the state of nature Rousseau depicts has its origins in many writings of that time that had a quite

important influence on him. These documents described the characteristics of humans that have not yet known

civilisation and Christianity, and that, according to those stories, they were freer than civilised men.4

From “Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality among Men” one can clearly grasp the idea that

the state of primitive man, as Rousseau imagines it, has nothing i n common with the social man. Or, the

inequality causes must be looked for in the society that is in the social man and under no circumstances i n t he

natural state of pre-social man.5 Why? Because the creation of interhuman relations is the reason that lead to the

emergence of vices and disorder that generate conflicts. Therefore, the wild man was a happy man thanks to its

ignorance that generally characterized it, because he had no fears since he could not conceive another way of

living. The life he was having was neither good nor bad especially because he had no moral relations with other

people6, he was a free man, because he lived alo ne, his only feelings being love for oneself and compassion,

pity7. Actually, this feeling is the one that in its state of nature p lays the role tha t the law plays in society,

 Candiate Ph.D. University of Craiova, Law and Administrative Sciences, p roject POSDRU/6/1.5/S/14 “Creşterea atractivitii, calitii şi

eficienei studiilor universitare de doctorat prin acordarea de burse doctorale”, ijjs@univagora.ro.

1 Thierry Ménissier, “Présentation” n, , Ed. Ellipses, Paris, 2004, p. 5-7.

2 Gheorghe Dnişor, Nicolae, Popa, Ion Dogaru, Dan Claudiu Dnişor, Filosofia dreptului. Marile curente, All Beck Publishing House,

Bucharest, 2002, p. 179.

3 Jean-Jacques Rousseau,  Scientific Publishing House, Bucharest, 1985,

p. 141.

4 Idem, pp. 41-42.

5 Idem, p. 48.

6 Idem, pp. 102-103.

7 Idem, p. 72.