The Practicality of the Social Contract

I.) Introduction

Society’s structure has been debated and contested as far back as ancient Greece. Since then, man has developed social systems that greatly differ from anything the ancients had in mind. One such system is the social contract theory, which first came to prominence around the time of the enlightenment. Simplified, social contractarians argued that in order to achieve a balanced and stable society, all of its members must sacrifice certain liberties to a government or similar authority. As Rousseau explains, the contract begins when “Each of us places his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will” (148). Essentially, it is an agreement between the rulers and the ruled that produces a stable political state. John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s The Social Contract are both enlightenment works that detail contractarianism, yet each has a unique and different way of considering the social contract. Although John Stuart Mill is also known for his work with Utilitarianism, his essay On Liberty considers consent and other issues relating to contract theory. These authors provide different insights into the social contract, and frequently one will reject another’s idea and offer a new solution. Even after this meshing of ideas and solutions, contract theory falls short of practicality. The idea is appealing, appearing on the surface as a fair and just way of governance. However, true liberty cannot arise from a contract, as man cannot be “forced to be free” (150). There are two fundamental flaws with contractarianism: it is not practical and it ignores human nature, and even if were possible to establish a true contract-based society, the citi...

... middle of paper ...

...tract theory does raise additional questions. Rousseau envisioned a society in which every voice was heard. A solution to this impracticality is the idea of representation—something which Locke advocated for in The Second Treatise. The idea makes sense; have one person represent a group of people to improve functionality. However, how can a man fully represent an entire group’s interest? Surely there must be some differences between the representative and those he represents. If that is the case, can one call that justice? The man already relinquished certain rights by accepting the contract. With representation, he also gives up his right to full participation in the system. Despite this problem and the other issues with contractarianism, this theory served as a foundation for the American political system and continues to inspire political ideologies worldwide.