Difference Between Madison And Rousseau

Society and Government:
Which is the Cart and Which is the Horse?
1. Political unions rule our lives; religion rules our souls. So long as both exist, a balance must be struck between them. James Madison, in “Federalist Paper Number 10” and “A Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments,” and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in The Social Contract, each tries to determine this balance, yet they come to vastly different conclusions. While Madison believes religious freedom is essential, Rousseau cares less for it and instead argues that the government should establish requirements for its citizens’ religious beliefs. Furthermore, not only do they disagree practically on whether to implement religious freedom, but they also disagree theoretically

on whether religious freedom is beneficial or detrimental to society.
2.

At first glance, a compelling underlying source for Madison and Rousseau’s disagreement is that Madison places a greater emphasis on the rights of individuals, while Rousseau believes more strongly in benefitting society. Thus, since Madison cares more about the individual, he promotes religious freedom, and since Rousseau cares more about society, he promotes society’s ability to ensure that people’s beliefs fit into society’s best interests. However, a philosophical argument on the relative importance of individual and societal interests does not explain why Madison and Rousseau disagree on whether religious freedom itself is beneficial to societal interests. Instead, a more encompassing source of Madison and Rousseau’s dispute is a fundamental debate over the order in which society and government emerge. Madison thinks society creates government, so laws are beneficial to society and should be enacted if they help stabilize the society that currently exists. Rousseau, meanwhile, believes that government creates society, so laws are beneficial to society and should be enacted if they contribute to the stability of the new society that is being created. The arguments between Madison and Rousseau over whether government has the power to legislate religion and whether religious freedom is beneficial or detrimental to society are a result of Madison and Rousseau’s differing opinions on whether government creates society or society creates

government.
3. Both Madison and Rousseau address the power the government should wield over its citizens’ religious practices, but they differ vastly on how that power should be limited. Madison believes that government has no jurisdiction over its citizens’ religious beliefs. When describing the power that society has over its members, Madison says that a person’s duty to a Creator is “precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation” to the laws of society. Therefore, he adds, “Religion is wholly exempt” from any societal mandates (MMR, 22). According to Madison, since people first decide how to worship their god and only then join society, religious affiliation is outside the purview of society’s power. Therefore, the government cannot write laws dictating religious beliefs.
4. Furthermore, even if religious beliefs were within the purview of government legislation, Madison also believes that religious mandates go against society’s best interests. He states that a fair government “will be best supported by protecting every citizen in the enjoyment of his religion” (MMR, 25). Madison here says that the way for government to function properly is to ensure that everyone has an equal right to decide his or her own religion. Moreover, Madison adds that keeping government out of religion protects society from polarization and strife. He claims establishing a government-supported religion would destroy the “moderation and harmony” that religions develop if there is no government religion (MMR 25). To Madison, government control over religion serves to make religion less moderate and more likely to cause conflict. Thus, Madison believes freedom of religion protects not only individual rights, but also societal interests.
5. Rousseau, in contrast, believes both that governmental religious mandates are beneficial to society and that the government should make these mandates. According to Rousseau, while a religion’s specific laws and beliefs are not open to state review, religious dogmas that “relate to morality and to the duties which the one who professes them is bound to fulfill toward others” are subject to government power (R, 102). The government should have influence over religious beliefs that regulate a person’s interactions with society. Therefore, he says, the government should require citizens to subscribe to a “civil religion” that contains certain required “dogmas” (R, 102). If the citizen refuses, the government should “banish” him (R, 102). Thus, Rousseau argues for government-mandated religious beliefs that if not followed result in exclusion from the society. This is in strong opposition to Madison’s assertion that government mandated religious beliefs are both philosophically problematic and counterproductive.
6. The most intuitive explanation for the difference between Madison and Rousseau is that Madison believes individual rights are more important than the overall benefit to society, while Rousseau holds that society’s interests reign supreme. Madison is focused on developing a government that protects these individual interests. He believes that the “first objective” of government is to protect individuals’ diverse capabilities and possessions (MFP, 130-131). Madison, then, gives individuals’ rights his primary focus. Rousseau, in contrast, when explaining how individuals gather to form a society, makes clear that it involves “the total alienation of each associate, together with all of his rights, to the entire community” (R, 24). Rousseau believes that the individual has absolutely no rights, because he forfeits them to the interests of society. Thus while Madison assigns primacy to individuals’ interests, Rousseau put society first.
7. This underlying disagreement, however, does not explain why Madison and Rousseau differ on whether religious freedom is beneficial to society. Belief in the primacy of individual interests does not determine how one views religious freedom’s effect on societal interests. Madison could still consider individuals’ interests more important than society’s and yet hold like Rousseau that religious freedom is actually detrimental to society. Thus, describing Madison and Rousseau’s dispute over religious freedom solely as an argument about choosing between individuals and society is insufficient.
8.

Instead, a more fundamental point of departure between Madison and Rousseau is that Madison believes society creates government, while Rousseau argues that government creates society. In repudiating the government’s ability to regulate religion, Madison describes government as “the creatures and vicegerents of [society]” (MMR, 22). In other words, government is the agent through which society wields its power. Society can only use government if it is antecedent to government. Furthermore, Madison adds that government is instituted to “secure and perpetuate” the “public liberty” (MMR, 25). It is designed to preserve society’s liberty, not to create society. Again, it is impossible to liberate society or keep it free unless society already exists. Thus, according to Madison, society creates government as a tool to accomplish its

interests.
9. Rousseau, in contrast, believes that the creation of government leads to the creation of society. According to Rousseau, each subject first “places his person and all his power under the supreme direction of the general will” (R, 24). The citizens first become subject to decisions by a governmental force—the general will. Rousseau then continues that it is “this act of association” that “produces a moral and collective body” (R, 24). The collective body, society, forms because of the creation of the governmental force. From this reasoning, it is clear that unlike Madison, Rousseau believes that government creates society, not the other way around.
10. Madison’s opinion that society creates government necessarily causes Madison to hold that religious mandates are detrimental to society and therefore should not be made. Since society creates government, the government’s imperative is to preserve the stability of the existing society, not create an alternate one. A detrimental law is one that runs counter to the preservation of the current society’s stability. Accordingly, a state religion is detrimental because it would “slacken the bands of Society” (MMR, 26). In other words, trying to change the religious beliefs of someone who is already a member of society would certainly lead to the destabilization of the current society. Consequently, since religious freedom is vital to societal stability, laws that harm religious freedom should not be made. According to Madison, because society creates government, a law is required to support the current society, and since religious mandates sabotage society, they fail to fulfill this requirement and are outside the government’s purview.
11. In contrast, Rousseau’s belief that government is needed to create a society logically leads him to conclude that a religious test is beneficial to society and that it is the government’s right and responsibility to demand one. To Rousseau, since government creates society, it is required to make laws that ensure the society it is creating will be stable and able to survive. Whether a law is beneficial is determined by how it will serve to help manufacture a stable society. The religious test fits this requirement because it is designed to ensure that the members included in the soon-to-be-made society will be “good citizens” and contribute to the cohesiveness of society (R, 102). Therefore, since the religious test ensures societal stability and the government has the right to make laws that support society, the government has the right to mandate a religious test. As seen here, to Rousseau, the logical result of government’s responsibility to create society is that religious mandates are beneficial to society and within the government’s power. Thus, while Madison looks at religious freedom’s benefit to the existing society and concludes the government may not limit it, Rousseau focuses on religious freedom’s detrimental effect on a new society and concludes government should limit the freedom.
12. The source of Madison and Rousseau’s disagreement over state religion can be traced to a dispute over whether society creates government or government creates society. If society came first, the baseline for governmental laws is avoiding destabilizing society. On the other hand, if government came first, the baseline needs to be ensuring that society can exist at all. While these fundamental disagreements were looked here as they expressed themselves with regards to religious freedom, it is not limited to this domain. In disagreements of personal freedoms in general, Madison will look for laws that preserve society, while Rousseau will need ones that create it from scratch.