The Origin of Sovereignty—A Book Report on *The Social Contract*

The Origin of Sovereignty—A Book Report on The Social Contract

The Social Contract (also translated as Of the Social Contract), is a great work written by the Swiss-French thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1762.

Rousseau was one of the great thinkers of the French Enlightenment in the eighteenth century. One of his most famous representative works, The Social Contract, provided, to a certain extent, programmatic theoretical guidance for the drafting of the French and American constitutions. Rousseau’s views played a positive role in promoting the Enlightenment; however, they still possessed the limitations inherent to the bourgeoisie, aiming to preserve bourgeois rights such as freedom and equality, rather than starting from the fundamental standpoint of the broader, neglected lower-class masses of a socialist nature. This is worthy of critical reflection.

In Book I, Rousseau first depicts the possibility of the existence of the social contract with exquisite and concise brushwork. Arguing from the perspective of the source of power, Rousseau denies the views of Grotius and Hobbes, which leaned more towards the natural existence of rulers (Page 6). By pointing out the miserable plight of slaves in a slave society and using vivid examples, he proves through reductio ad absurdum the absurdity of slaves giving themselves up for free, denying that force is a sufficient condition for right. Since neither power nor right can come from force, and certainly not from nature (Page 4), then from where does the ruler’s right originate? In this interrogation, Rousseau introduces the concept of the social contract: that is, “men have reached the point at which the obstacles in the way of their preservation in the state of nature show their power of resistance to be greater than the resources at the disposal of each individual for his maintenance in that state” (Page 18). For this reason, people must find a form of association, namely the social contract. Rousseau believes this is the origin of the so-called republic or body politic. In Chapter 7 and thereafter, Rousseau mainly discusses the means of maintaining the social contract after its creation: the force of the sovereign, and finally points out the feasibility of the social contract on a utilitarian level.

In Book II, building upon the creation of sovereignty discussed in Book I, Rousseau explores the properties possessed by sovereignty, such as its inalienability, its indivisibility, and its limits, as well as the form in which I believe sovereignty functions within the state: law. For instance, Rousseau’s assertion that “For law combines the universality of the will with the universality of the object… that is not an act of sovereignty, but an act of magistracy” (Pages 47-48), points out that the source of sovereignty, as the general will of the citizens, is all citizens, and its object is therefore equally all citizens due to justice. However, it is worth noting that the limitations of Rousseau as a bourgeois thinker are also evident in this volume: Rousseau subjectively divides civilization into so-called “youth” and “infancy,” believing that civilizations, or nations, in their so-called youth cannot “recover their freedom,” but can only gradually ossify, like the gradually decaying ruts of the millennial Roman Empire and the barbarism of the Russian Empire’s iron hooves. He also believes that in a vast state, “not only has the government less vigor and promptitude for securing the observance of the laws, preventing nuisances, correcting abuses, and anticipating seditious undertakings which may happen in distant places… the people have less affection for their chiefs” (Page 60), and thus it must disintegrate from within. However, undoubtedly, the China of the new era, a vast and mighty country, the Chinese nation of the new era, full of vigor and vitality, has thoroughly abandoned the feudal system of thousands of years, holding high the great banner of the system of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, walking on the Long March of the great new era. Scientific socialism and ancient China are radiating the freedom and vitality of youth in the East of the 21st century. The superior system, the brilliant leadership of the Communist Party of China, and the great achievements China has made are powerful arguments that falsify this view of Rousseau.

In Book III, Rousseau first uses the division between legislative power and executive power to realize the separation of the sovereign—the people, and the government—the agent of public force. The sovereign grants power to the government, and the sovereign’s power comes from the people; I privately think this is similar to our People’s Congress and the People’s Government. When discussing the classification of governments, Rousseau classically divides them into Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy. However, views such as the vigor of the government being negatively correlated with the number of magistrates are obviously incorrect. This error lies in the fact that Rousseau’s bourgeois nature leads him to naturally regard the masses as foolish, which is a manifestation of elitist rule. Moreover, Rousseau never imagined that the system of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics would make true democracy possible. “Taking the term democracy in its strict sense, there never has been a real democracy, and there never will be… We cannot imagine the people remaining in perpetual assembly to deal with public affairs…” (Page 84). The People’s Congress system and the principle of Democratic Centralism truly represent the fundamental interests of the broadest masses of people. But beyond this, the requirements for a good government pointed out by Rousseau are still worthy of reference for our country’s social governance today—even if there is no absolute standard for a so-called good government—“the subjects extol public tranquility, the citizens individual liberty; the one class prefers security of property, the other that of person” (Page 106). Perhaps Socialism with Chinese Characteristics can solve this seemingly conflicting problem. Rousseau’s admiration for the rule of law and the sanctity of legislative power—“The state does not subsist by virtue of the laws, but by the legislative power” (Page 113)—may have positive reference significance for building a China under the rule of law with good laws and good governance.

In Book IV, Rousseau starts from a concrete level to discuss the various details of government and the various ways to maintain the rights of the sovereign and the stability of the state. However, I cannot agree with his subsequent exposition on the importance of religion. Although the millennial history of war and annexation in the ancient West can almost be regarded as a history of struggle between religions, with one leaving the stage as another enters. “By means of this holy, sublime, and true religion… that society would not be dissolved even in death” (Page 175). But Chinese society is actually vastly different, having nothing to do with what Rousseau calls Christianity. This is perhaps because the common ideal of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and the lofty ideal of Communism serve as the common goals of the Chinese people, enabling the great, glorious, and heroic Chinese people to struggle continuously.

Regarding writing style, I believe Rousseau vividly employed methods including examples, citations, and statistics for argumentation, such as calculating the ratio between magistrates and the people; pointing out the goals of Carthage, Tyre, and Rhodes in their times; citing the views of sages like Grotius and Aristotle to criticize or endorse them. Quoting copiously from many sources and handling heavy topics with ease, he displayed the superb political and legal literacy possessed by Rousseau as one of the leaders of the Enlightenment. His writing is profound yet accessible, benefiting me greatly. At the same time, Rousseau excelled at conducting specific research and discussion on specific countries and specific situations. For example, by pointing out how differences in productivity across various countries lead to differences in product surplus, and how the land resources, nature of products, and national customs of various countries differ, he argued that there is no single form of government suitable for all countries. Perhaps the early Marx was also influenced by such “seeking truth from facts” thinking of Rousseau and carried it forward.

In summary, Rousseau’s The Social Contract, as an extremely brilliant political and legal work, has given me a relatively more profound understanding of the origin of modern Western democratic systems and their thoughts, benefiting me greatly.
(Total 2284 words)

2023/11/29 18:42