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 into Chinese as Min Yue Lun), is a great work written in 1762 by the Franco-Swiss thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Rousseau was one of the great thinkers of the 18th-century French Enlightenment. One of his most famous masterpieces, The Social Contract, provided, to a certain extent, programmatic theoretical guidance for the formulation of the French and American constitutions. Rousseau’s views played a positive driving role during the Enlightenment, yet they still possess the inherent limitations of his bourgeois class nature. Their ultimate aim is to preserve bourgeois rights such as liberty and equality, rather than proceeding from the fundamental standpoint of the broader, neglected grassroots masses of a socialist nature. This is worthy of critical reflection.

In Book I, first of all, Rousseau depicts with exquisite and concise prose the possibility of why the social contract exists. Arguing from the perspective of the source of power, Rousseau negates the views of Grotius and Hobbes, which lean more toward the natural existence of rulers (p. 6). By pointing out the miserable plight of slaves in a slave society, and using vivid examples, he proves by contradiction the absurdity of slaves giving themselves away gratuitously, thereby denying that force is a sufficient condition for right. Since neither power nor right can be derived from force, and most certainly do not arise from nature (p. 4), whence, then, do the rights of rulers come? Through this interrogation, Rousseau introduces the concept of the social contract: namely, that “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 (p. 18).” To this end, people must find a form of association—namely, the social contract. Rousseau believes this is the genesis of the so-called confederation or republic. In Chapter 7 and beyond, 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 genesis of sovereignty in Book I, Rousseau explores the nature of sovereignty—such as its inalienability, its indivisibility, and its limits—as well as what I consider to be the form through which sovereignty functions within a state: the law. For instance, Rousseau’s assertion that “seeing that the law unites universality of will with universality of object… it is not an act of sovereignty, but of magistracy. (pp. 47-48)” points out that sovereignty, as the collective will of the citizens, originates from all citizens, and out of justice, its object is likewise the entirety of the citizenry. However, it is worth noting that Rousseau’s own limitations as a bourgeois thinker are also glimpsed in this book: Rousseau subjectively divides civilizations into periods of so-called “youth” and “childhood,” and further believes that civilizations, or nations, in their so-called youth cannot “recover their liberty,” but can only gradually ossify—much like the decaying tracks of the thousand-year Roman Empire and the barbarism beneath the iron hooves of the Russian Empire. He also argues that in a vast nation, “not only has the government less vigour and promptitude for securing the observance of the laws, preventing nuisances, correcting abuses, and guarding against seditious undertakings begun in distant places… it also has less affection.” (p. 60), and thus must inevitably disintegrate from within. Yet, without a doubt, China in the New Era—a magnificent and vast country—and the Chinese nation in the New Era, brimming with vitality, have thoroughly cast off the thousand-year-old feudal system. Holding high the great banner of the system of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, they are marching on the great Long March of the 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 outstanding leadership of the Communist Party of China, and the great achievements China has made serve as powerful evidence falsifying this view of Rousseau’s.

In Book III, Rousseau first utilizes the distinction between legislative power and executive power to achieve 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 derives from the people, which I personally believe is akin to both the People’s Congress and the People’s Government in our country. When discussing the classification of governments, Rousseau classically divides them into monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy; however, views such as the vitality of a government being negatively correlated with the number of magistrates are obviously erroneous. This error lies in Rousseau’s bourgeois nature, which makes him naturally regard the masses as ignorant—a manifestation of elitist rule. Moreover, Rousseau could never have imagined that the system of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics would make true democracy possible: “If we take the term in the strict sense, there never has been a real democracy, and there never will be… It is unimaginable that the people should remain continually assembled to devote their time to public affairs…” (p. 84). The system of People’s Congresses and the principle of democratic centralism truly represent the fundamental interests of the broadest masses of the people. Beyond this, however, 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—“Subjects extol public tranquillity, citizens individual liberty; the one class prefers security of possessions, the other that of person” (p. 106). Perhaps Socialism with Chinese Characteristics can resolve this seemingly conflicting dilemma. Rousseau’s reverence for the rule of law and the sanctity of legislative power—“The State subsists by means not of the laws, but of the legislative power.” (p. 113)—may hold positive reference value for building a law-based China characterized by good laws and good governance.

In Book IV, Rousseau first approaches from a concrete level to discuss the various details of government and the various ways of maintaining the rights of the Sovereign and the stability of the state. However, I cannot agree with his subsequent exposition on the importance of religion. Even though the thousand-year history of wars and annexations in the ancient West can almost entirely be viewed as a history of struggles between religions, with one taking the stage no sooner than another steps down. “By means of this holy, sublime, and true religion… that society would not dissolve even unto death.” (p. 175), yet the reality of Chinese society is vastly different from this, having nothing whatsoever to do with what Rousseau calls Christianity. Perhaps this is because the common ideal of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and the lofty ideal of Communism serve as the shared goals of the Chinese people, enabling the great, glorious, and heroic Chinese people to strive ceaselessly.

In terms of writing style, I find that Rousseau vividly employs methods including examples, citations, and numerical calculations to make his arguments—such as calculating the ratio between magistrates and the people; pointing out the respective goals of Carthage, Tyre, and Rhodes in their eras; and citing the views of past sages like Grotius and Aristotle to either critique or endorse them. Drawing extensively from diverse sources and handling complex topics with effortless ease, he demonstrates the superb literacy in political science and jurisprudence possessed by one of the leaders of the Enlightenment. He explains the profound in simple terms, from which I have benefited immensely. At the same time, Rousseau excels at conducting concrete research and discussions on specific countries and specific situations. For example, by pointing out how differences in productivity among various countries lead to different situations of surplus product, as well as the land resources, nature of products, and national customs of each country, he argues that there is no single form of government suitable for all countries. Perhaps the young Marx was also influenced by such a pragmatic, truth-seeking thought of Rousseau’s and carried it forward to greater heights.

In summary, Rousseau’s The Social Contract, as an extraordinarily brilliant work on politics and law, has given me a relatively deeper understanding of the genesis of modern Western democratic systems and their underlying thought, benefiting me a great deal.
(2284 characters in total)

2023/11/29 18:42