Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Influence of mass media in politics
Influence of mass media in politics
The French philosopher Rousseau
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
“Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. Those who think themselves masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they.” Jean-Jacques Rousseau opened his 1762 book The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right (Du contrat social) with this now famous quote, and with it rejecting the governments of his time. Rousseau’s radical ideas on government would later become a rallying point of the French Revolution, despite him having died several years before. Some of his ideas would even come to influence the creation of America’s constitution, yet American Democracy has, in many ways, become the exact opposite of the ideas Rousseau advocated as being the ideal government.
Surprisingly, Rousseau did not actually view democracy,
A vital part of what makes a successful Democracy is being highly politically active, Rousseau even insists that it be written into a state’s laws that citizens meet in periodic assemblies. In spite of his claims Americans are notoriously bad at this. As demonstrated in the chart, even with such a televised and dramatic election as the 2016 Presidential Race, voter turnout hit a low. Which is not to say that voter turnout had been impressive in previous years, at it’s highest percent in 2008, it was still only 63.7 percent. For Rousseau’s ideal democracy this is an abysmal rate of participation, especially considering that Presidential elections receive the most attention by far. Voter turnout for local elections is even worse, with only a sad 11.89 percent voting in the 2015 Mayoral election
However, the general will is more than just the will of all. The general will, in theory, is supposed to be what’s best for the state as a whole. In order to reach the general will, citizens must not vote for their own personal interests. Instead they must reject individualism, and embrace the community and it’s needs as a whole. Thus Rousseau concludes that for a democracy to be successful it needed to be a small state, with honest citizens not ruled by greed, materialism, or ambition. Nor could there be factions.
American culture doesn’t seem to fit this description, we’re a society built upon ‘reach for the stars’ and ‘bigger is better’, we are consumed, at times, by a consumer culture. Massive wealth inequality plagues the nation, spurring cries of “We are the 99 percent!” While Rousseau admittedly protects the idea of private property, he admits a democracy cannot function with such inequality. When such a gap exists the poor are desperate enough to sell their freedom and the rich feel free to buy
Rousseau, however, believed, “the general will by definition is always right and always works to the community’s advantage. True freedom consists of obedience to laws that coincide with the general will.”(72) So in this aspect Rousseau almost goes to the far extreme dictatorship as the way to make a happy society which he shows in saying he, “..rejects entirely the Lockean principle that citizens possess rights independently of and against the state.”(72)
Tocqueville wrote that Americans are inherently more materialistic than European peoples for three reasons. First, Americans have freed themselves by rejecting “a territorial aristocracy” of hierarchical societal structures on the “soil of America.” By doing so, “the distinctions of ranks are obliterated and privileges are destroyed,” therefore causing “the desire of acquiring the comforts of the world” to haunt “the imagination of the poor, and the dread of losing them that of the rich.” Second, in an egalitarian society, where every citizen has an equal opportunity “the most marked inequalities do not strike the eye; when everything is nearly on the same level, the slightest are marked enough to hurt i...
The Founding Fathers of the United States relied heavily on many of the principles taught by John Locke. Many of the principles of Locke’s Second Treatise of Government may easily be discovered in the Declaration of Independence with some minor differences in wording and order. Many of the ideas of the proper role of government, as found in the Constitution of the United States, may be discovered in the study of Locke. In order to understand the foundation of the United States, it is vital that one studies Locke. A few ideas from Hume may be found but the real influence was from Locke. Rousseau, on the other hand, had none.
John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies.
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
To understand the Rousseau stance on claims to why the free republic is doomed we must understand the fundamentals of Rousseau and the Social Contract. Like Locke and Hobbes, the first order of Rousseau’s principles is for the right to an individual’s owns preservation. He does however believe that some are born into slavery. His most famous quote of the book is “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains” (Rousseau pg 5). Some men are born as slaves, and others will be put into chains because of the political structures they will establish. He will later develop a method of individuals living free, while giving up some of their rights to...
The principal tension is between a democratic conception, where the general will is simply what the citizen of the state have decided together in their sovereign assembly, in simple terms Rousseau is saying the people generally settle for what the leaders of their individual communities lay down and out for them, and an alternative interpretation where the general will is the transcendent incarnation of the citizens common interest that exists in abstraction from what any of them actually want. Both views find some support in Rousseau’s texts, and both have been influential, modern and contemporary epistemic conception of democracy often make reference to Rousseau’s text and have both been
Therefore, in order for any form of democracy to function, Representative Democracy is the superior form of political rule. Jean Jacques Rousseau is considered by many to be the `Grandfather' of direct democracy theory. Rousseau's ideal society would be where the citizens were directly involved in the creation of the laws which are to govern their lives. He maintained that, "all citizens should meet together and decide what is best for the community and enact the appropriate laws. Any law which was not directly created by the citizens is not valid, and if those laws are imposed on people, that is equivalent to the people being enslaved.
Rousseau suggests that the first convention must be unanimous, and the minority has no obligation to submit to the choice of the majority, “as the law of majority rule is itself established by convention and presupposes unanimity at least once” (Rousseau, 172). For Locke and Hobbes, one’s self-preservation (and the protection of his property, which is quite synonymous to self-preservation to Locke) is the first principle , and if it is threatened, one has the rights to leave the “body politic” or rebel. Moreover, one also has the right to decide whether he wants to stay under the government when he grows to a certain age . Such arguments give the minority a passive freedom: their voice may not be powerful to change the society, but they can at least leave the society that is against them. Furthermore, Rousseau disapproves factions within a state, especially big ones, as their wills, namely the majority’s wills, potentially nullify the general will . His continual emphasis that the general will should represent the entire people indicates his concern for the
From its early period, the United States has obtained an indirect type of democracy, and has always had contentment that its citizens are allowed to vote for their representatives, especially the President. Nevertheless, the amount of citizens that actually vote in nationwide elections has decreased noticeably over the years. Voter participation and turnout has been declining in the United States throughout history. Voter turnout, the percentage of eligible individuals who actually vote (Ginsberg), to this day is lower than it was in the 1900’s. Since 1912, presidential elections have only had about 50 to 65 percent of Americans participate. This means that about half of United States citizens who are eligible and have the freedom to vote have failed to participate in presidential elections. At the end of the nineteenth century voter turnout started plummeting, reaching the 60 percent level by the election of 1912 (Teixeira, 1987). The declining rate of voter participation in the United States is due to voter registration and procedu...
...ion with the general will. This may sound like a contradiction but, to Rousseau, the only way the body politic can function is by pursuing maximum cohesion of peoples while seeking maximum individuation. For Rousseau, like Marx, the solution to servitude is, in essence, the community itself.
To make this argument I will first outline this thought with regard to this issue. Second, I will address an argument in support of Rousseau’s view. Third, I will entertain the strongest possible counterargument to my view; namely, the idea that the general will contradicts itself by forcing freedom upon those who gain no freedom from the general will. Fourth, I will rebut that counter argument by providing evidence that the general will is always in favor of the common good. Finally, I will conclude my paper by summarizing the main lines of the argument of my paper and reiterate my thesis that we can force people to be free.
Firstly, each individual should give themselves up unconditionally to the general cause of the state. Secondly, by doing so, all individuals and their possessions are protected, to the greatest extent possible by the republic or body politic. Lastly, all individuals should then act freely and of their own free will. Rousseau thinks th...
In The Social Contract philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau discuss their differences on human beings’ place of freedom in political societies. Locke’s theory is when human beings enter society we tend to give up our natural freedom, whereas Rousseau believes we gain civil freedom when entering society. Even in modern times we must give up our natural freedom in order to enforce protection from those who are immoral and unjust.
...ons on what kind of government should prevail within a society in order for it to function properly. Each dismissed the divine right theory and needed to start from a clean slate. The two authors agree that before men came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature, which lacked society and structure. In addition, the two political philosophers developed differing versions of the social contract. In Hobbes’ system, the people did little more than choose who would have absolute rule over them. This is a system that can only be derived from a place where no system exists at all. It is the lesser of two evils. People under this state have no participation in the decision making process, only to obey what is decided. While not perfect, the Rousseau state allows for the people under the state to participate in the decision making process. Rousseau’s idea of government is more of a utopian idea and not really executable in the real world. Neither state, however, describes what a government or sovereign should expect from its citizens or members, but both agree on the notion that certain freedoms must be surrendered in order to improve the way of life for all humankind.