THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY: HOBBES V.

ROUSSEAU
AN ANALYSIS

The term social contract describes a broad class of philosophical theories whose
subject is the implied agreements by which people form nations and maintain a social
order. In laymen's terms this means that the people give up some of their rights to a
government in order to receive protection and social order. Social contract theory
provides the rationale behind the historically important notion that legitimate state
authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. The starting point for most
of these theories is an heuristic examination of the human condition absent any social
order, termed the “state of nature” or “natural state”. In this state of being, an individual’s
action is bound only by his or her conscience. From this common starting point, the
various features of social contract theory attempt to explain, in different ways, why it is in
an individual’s rational self-interest to voluntarily give up the freedom of action one has
under the natural state (their so called “natural rights”) in order to obtain the benefits
provided by the formation of social structures.

Common to all of these theories is the notion of a sovereign will which all
members of a society are bound by the social contract to respect. The various types of
social contract theory that have developed are largely differentiated by their definition of
the sovereign will, be it a King (monarchy), a Council (oligarchy) or The Majority
(republic or democracy). Under a theory first articulated by Plato, members within a
society implicitly agree to the terms of the social contract by their choice to stay within
the society and receive protection. Thus implicit in most forms of social contract is that
freedom of movement is a fundamental or natural right which society may not
legitimately require an individual to surrender to the sovereign will.

The social contract theory has some basic features where it says- firstly. State is
an artificial institution signifying that it is a means to an end, secondly, it is created by
human beings with the help of a contract, thirdly, the contract must be based on the
consent of one and all, and lastly that prior to formation of state me lived in a
hypothetical situation known as ‘state of nature’.

Thomas Hobbes (1651), John Locke (1689), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762)
are the most famous philosophers of the social contract theory, which formed the
theoretical groundwork of democracy . Although the theory of natural rights influenced
the development of classical liberalism, its emphasis on individualism and its rejection of
the necessity to subordinate individual liberty to the sovereign will stands in opposition to
the general tenets of social contract theory.

According to Hobbes' theory, without society, we would live in a state of nature(

a hypothetical situation since it cannot be supported by historical data), where we each
have unlimited natural freedoms. The downside of this general autonomy is that it
includes the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to harm all who threaten one's own
self-preservation; there are no positive rights, only laws of nature and an endless "war of
all against all". In other words, anyone in the state of nature can do anything he likes; but
this also means that anyone can do anything he likes to anyone else.the state of nature
according to Hobbes is presocial and pre political in nature and there is no scope for
development to take place. To avoid this, we jointly agree to a social contract by which
we each gain civil rights in return for subjecting ourselves to civil law or to political
authority. In Hobbes' formulation, the sovereign power is not a party of the contract but
instead the sovereign is its creation, and so is not bound by it. The command of the
sovereign is law and the contract is irrevocable.

Alternatively, some have argued that we gain civil rights in return for accepting
the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do
so; this alternative formulation of the duty arising from the social contract is often
identified with militia, or defense activity.

State of nature is a term in political philosophy used in the social contract

theories to describe the hypothetical condition of humanity before the state's foundation
and its monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. In a broader sense, a state of
nature is the condition before the rule of positive law and order comes into being.

In some versions of social contract theory, there are no rights in the state of
nature, only freedoms, and it is the contract that creates rights and obligations. In other
versions the opposite occurs: the contract imposes restrictions upon individuals that
curtail their natural rights.

Hobbes's philosophy

The concept of a state of nature was first posited in the 17th century by English
philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his famous work Leviathan. Hobbes described the
concept in the Latin phrase ‘bellum omnium contra omnes’, meaning "the war of all
against all." In this state any person has a natural right to do anything to preserve their
own liberty or safety.

Hobbes believed that human beings in a state of nature would behave with cruelty
towards one another. Yet Hobbes argued that people had every right to defend themselves
by whatever means necessary in the absence of order. He believed that such a condition
would lead to a "war of every man against every man" and make life "solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish, and short." He believed that in the international arena, states behave as
individuals do in a state of nature.

Rousseau's theory

Hobbes's view was challenged in the 18th century by Jean-Jacques Rousseau,

who claimed that Hobbes was taking socialized persons and simply imagining them
living outside of the society in which they were raised. He affirmed instead that people
were born pure and good; men knew neither vice nor virtue since they had almost no
dealings with each other. Their bad habits were the products of civilization specifically
social hierarchies, property, and markets

Natural rights are those universal rights that are seen as inherent in the nature of
people and not contingent on human actions or beliefs.

One theory of natural rights was developed from the theory of natural law during
the ‘Enlightenment’ in opposition to the divine right of kings, and provided a moral
justification for liberalism.

The concept of natural rights can be contrasted with the concept of a legal rights:
A natural right is one that is claimed to exist even when it is not enforced by the
government or society as a whole, whereas a legal right is a right specifically created by
the government or society, for the benefit of its citizens.

Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher who influenced nearly all western
political philosophy. He is best known for his contribution to the social contract theory of
origin of state. Hobbes was greatly influenced in his ideas by the English civil war that
broke out in 1642.

This led Hobbes to produce a book to set forth his theory of civil government in
relation to the political crisis resulting from the war. It was based on an unpublished
treatise of 1640. The State, it now seemed to Hobbes, might be regarded as a great
artificial man or monster, composed of men, with a life that might be traced from its
generation under pressure of human needs to its dissolution through civil strife
proceeding from human passions. The work was closed with a general "Review and
Conclusion", in direct response to the war which raised the question of the subject's right
to change allegiance when a former sovereign's power to protect was irrecoverably gone.
Also he criticized religious doctrines on rationalistic grounds in the Commonwealth.

Hobbes’s Leviathan had immediate effects because of its secular nature and he
had to appeal to the revolutionary English government for protection which explains his
fondness for monarchy and gratitude for royal patronage. Leviathan was written during
the English Civil War; much of the book is occupied with demonstrating the necessity of
a strong central authority to avoid the evil of discord and civil war. Any abuses of power
by this authority are to be accepted as the price of peace. In particular, the doctrine of
separation of powers is rejected : the sovereign must control civil, military, judicial and
ecclesiastical powers. Hobbes explicitly states that the sovereign has authority to assert
power over matters of faith and doctrine, and that if he does not do so, he invites discord.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Genevan philosopher whose political ideas

influenced the French Revolution, the development of socialist theory, and the growth of
nationalism. Rousseau had lived a poor life full of hardship and travelled all over
observing the inequalities among the rich and poor and the differnet lifestyles. This led
him to write a famous book of hia known as Discourse on the Origin and Basis of
Inequality Among Men.

Rousseau saw a fundamental divide between society and human nature. He

contended that man was neither inherently good nor bad when in the state of nature (the
state of all other animals, and the condition humankind was in before the creation of
civilization and society), but is corrupted by society. This idea has often led to the
attribution to Rousseau the idea of the noble savage. He held that humans are good
because they are self-sufficient and thus not subject to the vices of political society. He
viewed society as artificial and held that the development of society, especially the
growth of social interdependence, has been inimical to the well-being of human beings.

He claims that as humans were forced to associate together more closely by the
pressure of population growth, they underwent a psychological transformation and came
to value the good opinion of others as an essential component of their own well-being.
Rousseau associated this new self-awareness with a golden age of human flourishing.
However, the development of agriculture, metallurgy, private property, and the division of
labor led to humans becoming increasingly dependent on one another, and led to
inequality. The resulting state of conflict led Rousseau to suggest that the first state was
invented as a kind of social contract made at the suggestion of the rich and powerful. This
original contract was deeply flawed as the wealthiest and most powerful members of
society tricked the general population, and thus instituted inequality as a fundamental
feature of human society. Rousseau's own conception of the social contract can be
understood as an alternative to this form of association.

In his famous work The Social Contract he begins by saying "Man is born free,
and everywhere he is in chains. One man thinks himself the master of others, but remains
more of a slave than they are." Rousseau claimed that the state of nature was a primitive
condition without law or morality, which human beings left for the benefits and necessity
of cooperation. As society developed, division of labour and private property required the
human race to adopt institutions of law. In the degenerate phase of society, man is prone
to be in frequent competition with his fellow men while at the same time becoming
increasingly dependent on them. This double pressure threatens both his survival and his
freedom. According to Rousseau, by joining together through the social contract and
abandoning their claims of natural right, individuals can both preserve themselves and
remain free. This is because submission to the authority of the general will of the people
as a whole guarantees individuals against being subordinated to the wills of others and
also ensures that they obey themselves because they are, collectively, the authors of the
law.

While Rousseau argues that sovereignty should be in the hands of the people, he
also makes a sharp distinction between sovereign and government. The government is
charged with implementing and enforcing the general will and is composed of a smaller
group of citizens, known as magistrates. Rousseau's ideas were influential at the time of
the French Revolution although, since popular sovereignty was exercised through
representatives rather than directly, it cannot be said that the Revolution was in any sense
an implementation of Rousseau's ideas.
 In Thomas Hobbes book Leviathan- Parts One and Two, he presents a
commonwealth ruled by a sovereign leader that is based on the laws of nature and the
kingdom of God. At the root of the commonwealth is a social contract, which is a
covenant binding the individuals of the society to wills and judgments of the sovereign
leader. The contract explores the asociality of the human species and self- preservation
which is fundamental to the human drive. Influenced by Hobbes’ social contract, Jean
Jacques Rousseau published On the Social Contract presenting his theory of the social
contract that both expanded and differed from Hobbes’ principles. Rousseau’s social
contract presented the governing factor to be the general will. Although Hobbes and
Rousseau have differing Social Contracts they each are represented by the phrase “A
kingdom divided cannot stand;” for, the former is a reference to a monarchy and the latter
is a reference to the general will.

In Hobbes’ Leviathan he presents the asociality of human nature. Because, he

notes, human kind is equal in both the body and the mind, men are in a constant state of
war with one another. For, from equality arises the desire to attain our goals, which leads
to competition between men who are seeking the same end. Thus, out of equality
develops diffidence and war. In this state of war men live without any common power
and thus, “every man is enemy to every man”. Their only security is their strength
compounded with the strength of their associates. Because man has no common strength
or power, there are no governing laws; hence, there are no injustices. Accordingly, there
is no place in the state of war for rights and wrongs. Hobbes notes, “Force and fraud are
in war the two cardinal virtues”, both of these virtues are unjust. He concludes that the
only motivation man has to seek peace is the fear of the consequences of war. The
motivation of fear does not connote social tendencies of the human specie to aid one
another; instead, it clearly notes humankind’s selfish disregard of each other.

In addition to humankinds’ tendency towards asociality, Hobbes presents people

as being inclined towards self-preservation above all other concerns. The theme of self-
preservation is presented in what Hobbes calls the right of nature. He explains this
fundamental concept to be, “the liberty each man has to use his own power, as he will
himself, for the preservation of his own nature- that is to say, of his own life”, meaning
that any man can go to whatever lengths necessary in order to preserve his own life.
Furthermore, an additional law of nature notes that, as a general rule, a man is prohibited
from behaving in a manner that is destructive to his life. Hobbes also supports what the
Christian bible has entitled “the golden rule,” or the declaration that one should behave,
as he or she would wish to be treated. This is a law of self-preservation which, if ardently
followed, would greatly increase peace. Yet, the golden rule is not often followed in the
state of war; for, one is disinterested in any other man’s desires besides his own. Thus
according to Hobbes, in a state of war man is allowed to behave in any manner he wishes;
however, his primary interest and natural guide are the rules of self-preservation.

Both humankinds’ nature of asociality and tendency towards self-preservation are

incorporated into Thomas Hobbes’ social contract. His social contract presents a
commonwealth in which there is one sovereign leader, to which all of his subjects have
pledged a covenant to surrender their judgments to those wills and judgments of the
sovereign. The covenant between the subjects and the sovereign entails very specific
rules of conduct. First, the subjects are bound to maintain the same form of the
government. They cannot lawfully make a new covenant among themselves; nor, can
they break their covenant to the sovereign in any form. For, if one man dissents all of the
other subjects should leave the commonwealth and return to a state of war, but this is a
great injustice. In addition, they cannot try to replace their covenant to the sovereign with
a covenant to God, for a covenant with God must be a lie, unless a subject was contacted
by God, himself, which, one must admit, is highly unlikely. Second, a sovereign cannot
break the covenant with his subjects. Thus, none of his subjects can be freed from his
discretion and will. Third, the subject is never endowed with the power to punish the
sovereign. Fourth, the roll of the sovereign is to perform whatever is necessary in order
to maintain a state of peace and to defend for all of his subjects. Also, the sovereign
determines what doctrines are appropriate to teach his subjects. Fifth, the sovereign is
endowed with the right to create governing rules. According to such rules, subjects must
lead his life. Furthermore, he has the right to declare peace or war. Lastly, he develops a
hierarchy within the subjects, pending on their level of honor. Thus, the sovereign has
ultimate control.

Hobbes believed that the sovereign ruler must be endowed with utter control; for
he believed, “a kingdom divided in itself cannot stand”. He recognized that often the
dissolution of a commonwealth occurs due to the division of the sovereign power. For
instance, if two states join together, yet each maintains their previous rulers, the subjects
will never have a definitive ruler or social code. Dissolution of the commonwealth is also
spurred by abuse of power, monopolies, conquering of a state during wartime, and private
judgments of good and evil. Although it is always an injustice if a subject questions the
rulings of the sovereign, Hobbes occasionally acknowledges that it is necessary. Thus the
premise of Hobbes’ social contract lies in a single leader with entirely obedient subjects.

It is clear that Hobbes’ Leviathan influenced the social contract put forth by Jean-
Jacques Rousseau entitled On the Social Contract. At the onset of his book, Rousseau
presents the fundamental problem for which he has developed his social contract:

Find a form of association which defends and protects with all common forces the
person and goods of each associate, and by means of which each one, while uniting with
all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before.

Rousseau presents the predicament of an association, which protects each

associate, while heeding the common good, yet still obeys each associate’s judgment and
will. To this he proposes a social contract, which is composed of clauses defined by the
nature of the act. These clauses are generally accepted and thus sprout from one’s
reasoning. A violation of this social contract leads to each person regaining their liberty
established prior to that association, but losing the liberty the association provided.
Rousseau further simplifies his social contract by explaining that these clauses are
reducible to one clause. This simplified clause states that the man who breeches the
contract from each associate in the community, shall incur alienation from all associates.
Rousseau finally condenses his social contract into one statement: “Each of us places his
person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will; and
as one we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole”. Rousseau is
concluding that each man places his power under the control of the general will or the
balance of the sum of private wills with the sum of general interests.

The largest difference between Rousseau’s social contract and Hobbes’ is the state
of nature. For, as previously stated, Hobbes’ state of nature between men was that of war
and diffidence. Additionally, Hobbes believes that social order is a state of nature. Yet,
Rousseau diverts from Hobbes on this matter. At the onset of his book, Rousseau notes
that although the social order is sacred it is not a natural order. Also, Rousseau explains
that the state of war cannot exist solely between individuals, but a private war is one
between two states. In such a case, individuals are enemies only due to the nature of war,
not due to the nature of mankind. This gap is the primary reason that Rousseau and
Hobbes’ social contracts differ. For, Hobbes’ social contract is pendent on the natural,
perpetual state of war between men. Because of such a state, Hobbes feels that it is
necessary to implement the strongest form of government, Monarchy. Accordingly,
because Rousseau does not believe in this natural state of war, he finds the people more
capable of reasoning the public’s best interest. Thus, he relies on the general will of all to
determine the actions of the governing body.

Despite this difference, Rousseau’s social contract is very similar to that of

Hobbes. They each are rooted in the principle of “a divided kingdom cannot stand.” It is
clear that Hobbes’ social contract upholds said principle for it is based on the premise of
the one sovereign leader. Additionally, Rousseau’s social contract unifies the kingdom
differently. For, according to Rousseau, the unity of the citizens lies in their general will.
Thus, the government will act in a manner favorable to the general will and accordingly,
the public is united.

Hobbes’ Leviathan: Parts One and Two, presents a moral code of conduct
established through prudence and science. His proposed commonwealth attempts to
protect men from one another by unifying a group of subjects under one sovereign leader.
His theory, however, does not account for potential lunatic dictators who incur mass
genocide on their people or develop a state of divided classes, with an extremely
impoverished lower class and an unnecessarily wealthy upper class, or overall misuse of
their ultimate control. Yet, Rousseau’s social contract has its negative points too. As
Rousseau admits, the general public does not have the intellectual capability to
rationalize the general good. Individuals may maintain the best intentions of determining
the general will, yet each response will be skewed. Thus one needs to take into account
only their intentions; yet, it is impossible to accordingly determine the general will.
Hence, neither Hobbes nor Rousseau’s social contract is perfect.
The differences and similarities between Hobbes and Rousseau’s perspectives on the state
of nature.

The basic assumption of both philosophers is that human beings - in the state of
nature - are equal and free. However, there is a important difference between Hobbes and
Rousseau`s view by considering the factors which determine the equality of savage men.
Hobbes assumes that the equality is solely physical, however, Rousseau believes also in a
moral equality of savagery. Rousseau`s viewpoint further differs from Hobbes in a
number of psychological compositions, although at first view you can see a similarity in
their assumptions. Hobbes suggests that the people are generally motivated by selfishness
and Rousseau claims that the natural men are motivated by self-love. On closer
examination Rousseau considers one more human instinct, in particular “Pity”.
Additionally, he envisages an idea of self-love, as the savage man is sufficient to himself
with the only perception for his true needs, purposeless to hurt others. Therefore the
notions “selfish” (Hobbes) and “self-love” (Rousseau) have to be seen in a different way.
In contrast to Rousseau, Hobbes describes the life of man as poor, nasty, brutish, and
short; therefore, the people are in constant competition amongst one another, and their
own survival and well being is more important than the well-being of others. In
Rousseau`s view the individual person empathizes with others one and he/her wouldn’t
like to see another man hurt.
In the face of physical dispositions, the natural man knows that every other is
willing to attack him, Hobbes argues. Whereas, Rousseau believes in a savage man is
without any need of his fellow men and without any passion to assail them. For instance,
when the point comes where two men, want the same object, Hobbes natural men become
enemies of each other because they will try to take what ever they can get from each
other. Rousseau would argue that men come to peace and help together because the
people know the higher own utility, if their actions are coordinated.

The view on solely motivated individuals by their own long-term interests, in

protecting their persons and goods, is similar between Hobbes and Rousseau. But, as
mentioned before, Rousseau maintains, that there comes a point at which the people
identify that mutually beneficial coordination is possible. As human beings are dependent
on the actions of others, it is consequently in his or her long-term interests to cooperate
with others. One can conclude that the main difference in Hobbes and Rousseau` s view
on the source of the state of nature, is the awareness of “competition / war” or of
“beneficial coordination / peace” by natural men. In other words, Rousseau assumes that
in the state of nature there cannot exist conflict between individuals; however, in the view
of Hobbes, there must be a war of all against all.

In Rousseau’s theory the sovereign is created by general will and it is a direct

democracy making the people the sovereign whereas in Hobbes’s theory the sovereign is
the king or the monarch. Rousseau promotes popular sovereignty.
 In Hobbes’s theory there is complete surrender of rights to the king although the
people have the right to resistance they have no other natural rights. In Rousseau’s theory
the people all have equal rights even though they do surrender their rights to the
collectively formed government, they are given rights by the state. Under Rousseau’s
theory there is complete absorption of the individual into the state and society ensures
equality among all as after they all surrender their rights everyone is equal and there are
no special privileges.

Another major difference in the two theories is that Rousseau’s relies on general
will taking into account the viewpoint of each member of the collective body whereas the
King in Hobbes’s theory is singular though the sovereign may be plural but the word of
the King is the law. He is the sole authority with whom all the power rests.

Under Hobbes’s theory the sovereign and the governing authority is the product of
a unilateral contract and cannot be changed whereas the sovereign in Rousseau’s theory is
the people of the nation and the government may change but the general will remains the
same.

Hobbes’s theory allows the people to have a right to resist the authority of the
sovereign. According to him, a person can resist the sovereign if he is commanded to kill
or wound himself, not to resist those who assault him or to abstain from the use of food,
air, medicine or anything without which he cannot live. Rousseau’s theory puts all men
on equal footing and since they are working towards the greater good of society, they do
not have the right to resistance.

Also another point is that in the theory given by Rousseau the sovereign and the
state work towards the development of the society as a whole, laws are just and made on
fair grounds but in Hobbes’s theory one sees that the King may become arbitrary and
make laws to suit himself or to suppress rights of the people.

Hence, it is seen that though the two theories given by such great political
thinkers are very different they are also similar in many ways. Some critics note that
Rousseau’s theory is based on Hobbes’s and John Locke’s theory of social contract.
Others go further to describe Rousseau’s concept of political sovereignty as Hobbes’s
Leviathan with its head chopped off.
REFERENCES

1. The social contract theorists – Critical essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau; edited
by Christopher W. Morris; Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.

2. Hobbes, Thomas (1651 [1904]): Leviathan – edited by A. R. Waller; Cambridge: at the

University Press

3. Rousseau, Jean-Jaques (1984 [1755]): A Discourse on Inequality; translated with an

introduction and notes by Maurice Cranston; Penguin Book

4. Principles of Political Science – A.C. Kapur, published by S. Chand