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 little for it and instead argues that the government should establish requirements for its citizens’ religious beliefs. It may be tempting to explain the difference between Madison and Rousseau as an argument over the relative importance of societal

interests and individual rights. Upon closer, examination, however, that explanation is insufficient. Rather, the source of Madison and Rousseau’s dispute stems from a more fundamental disagreement over the relationship between a society and its government. Madison thinks that society creates government, so government is limited to maintaining society and its members opinions as they stand; Rousseau, meanwhile, believes that a government creates a society and therefore has the responsibility to determine the structure of society and opinions of its members that will be most durable. Madison and Rousseau’s conflicting views on whether society leads to government or government leads to society are directly responsible for their conflicting views on the appropriateness of a state religion.
2. 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.
3. Rousseau, however, believes that the government should mandate certain religious beliefs. 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). Religious beliefs that regulate a person’s interactions with society are open to government influence. Therefore, he says, the government should require citizens to subscribe to a “civil religion” that does not prescribe specific actions but rather 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 the citizen being excluded from the society. This is in stark contrast to Madison’s assertion that government does not even have the jurisdiction to dictate religious beliefs.
4. The most intuitive explanation for this difference between Rousseau and Madison is that Madison believes individual rights are more important than the overall benefit to society, while Rousseau holds that society’s interests reign supreme. When explaining how individuals gather to form a society, Rousseau 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.
5. Madison, in contrast, is focused on developing a government that protects these individual interests. Madison writes that his proposed governmental structure is best because it will mitigate the negative effects of “factions.” Significantly, the danger of these factions—specific groups of people with a shared interest—is that they could make policy decisions to trample on the individual rights of others not in the faction. Madison says, “the great object to which our inquiries are directed” includes securing “private rights against the danger of such a faction” (MFP, 132). To Madison, the reason for creating a government that overcomes the dangers of factions is that it will better preserve individual rights. Thus, Madison appears to give individual rights his primary interest.
6. While the preceding analysis does indicate a disparity between Madison and Rousseau on the importance of individual rights, it is not sufficient to explain their disagreement regarding the government’s power over religious beliefs. Were the disagreement solely based upon differing priorities over state and individual interests, we should expect Madison and Rousseau to agree what those interests are, and only argue how best to weight them. Differing priorities on society and individuals should not affect the underlying estimation of religious freedom’s impact on society; it should only affect what they do with the impact. This, however, is not the case. Instead, Madison disagrees with Rousseau even on the societal impact of religious freedom.
7.

Rather than consider full religious freedom detrimental to society, Madison actually believes it vital for government and society to function. 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 best way for government to function properly is to ensure that everyone have 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 that 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 result in conflict. In contrast, providing religious freedom mitigates any religious conflict that does arise. Madison states, “Equal and complete liberty … destroys [religious discord’s] malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State” (MMR, 25). According to Madison, freedom of religion preserves the wellbeing of society. Thus, Madison believes freedom of religion protects not only individuals’ rights, but also societal interests.

8. Rousseau, on the other hand, believes that religion needs to be limited for society to function. Rousseau explains that his state-mandated religious beliefs include lack of intolerance because “whenever theological intolerance is allowed,

it is impossible for it not to have some civil effect.” For Rousseau, unlimited right to religious beliefs allows intolerance, which are inevitably detrimental to society. Thus, Rousseau and Madison already diverge on the issue of whether religious freedom is beneficial to society, a disagreement that has no relevance to the question of .
9. A more fundamental point of departure between Madison and Rousseau is their conceptions of the relationship between government and 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, in essence, the agent through which society wields its power. Society can also use government if it is antecedent to the government. Furthermore, he 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.
10.

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.
11. According to Rousseau, government is needed to create a society. Therefore, he must logically conclude that government has the power and responsibility to make laws that ensure the stability and cohesiveness of the society it is creating. This explains Rousseau’s view on state religion perfectly. To him, the propriety of state religion hinges on the question of whether it is more likely to perpetuate society or undermine it. Therefore, he rejects state-mandated paganism on the narrow grounds that it makes the state more likely to get into conflict with other states (R, 100) and rejects state-mandated Christianity because it is too meek to effectively keep control (R, 100-101). In both these cases, his primary consideration is a government structure that will bring society together in stable manner. This further elucidates Rousseau’s mandate for a specific religious test. The test is designed to ensure that the members included in society will contribute to the cohesiveness of society. This aligns with Rousseau’s belief that government institutes society because as such, it may include within it only members it deems will be conducive to societal stability. As seen here, to Rousseau, the logical result of government’s responsibility to create society is that it mandates religious beliefs that will create the best society.
12. Madison, in contrast, is working on the assumption that government is created by an already existing society. In this case, it is not possible for government simply to “banish” undesirables from the society. Its mandate is to preserve the stability of the existing society, not create an alternate one. Therefore, laws cannot threaten the stability of the society as it is. According to Madison, a state religion would “slacken the bands of Society” (MMR, 26). Trying to change the religious beliefs of some people who are already members of society would certainly lead to the crumbling of the current society. Thus, Madison believes that since society creates government, at the very least, government cannot act in a way contrary to the preservation of society.
13. 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 needs to be avoiding destabilizing society. On the other hand, if government came first, the baseline needs to be laws that allow society to 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.