1,670 words
Few things are more important in political philosophy than the relationship between citizens and government. Everything in political discourse and the rule of law (Or lack thereof) is defined by that relationship. In the United States particularly, the Founders were influenced by a set of political philosophies that, though ancient in practice, had only recently been thoroughly articulated: The Social Compact Theory. Compact Theory was championed most famously by the philosophers Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacque Rousseau. All three had wildly different ideas for society, but the essence of Compact Theory that they held in common was basically this: Between the governed and the governors, there is an established contract defining the rights, privileges, and duties of both parties, that government was created willfully by pure reason to avoid the anarchic state of nature. An excellent literal example would be the Mayflower Compact, but the theory was generally not taken so literally in Europe.
But first, we should go back nearly two thousand years to Rome’s twilight towards tyranny, in which the philosopher and politician Cicero fought verbally to the bitter end in an attempt to save his beloved republic from the likes of Caesar and Mark Antony, the latter of which would eventually assassinate him. Cicero did not directly refer to the social contract, but his works are nonetheless a base for the theory, to the extent that many schools unfortunately replaced his work with that of Hobbes and Locke, rendering him severely underrated in contemporary days. This is despite Cicero being deemed “The father of eloquence and philosophy” by Thomas Jefferson.
Cicero was a pioneer of the theory of natural law and, like most of his successors, believed the purpose of the social contract was fundamentally order. He stated, “law is not a product of human thought, nor is it any enactment of peoples, but something eternal which rules the whole universe by its wisdom in command and prohibition… Nor is it one law at Rome and another at Athens, one law today and another thereafter; but the same law, everlasting and unchangeable, will bind all nations and all times.” Humanity, furthermore, was granted rationality by the divine order to interpret this natural law, an ability not granted to lesser animals.
However, Cicero was not as pessimistic of human nature as many other philosophers who viewed law so objectively (Including some we will discuss soon). According to him, mankind has a natural and powerful desire to love and be loved and to cooperate. Therefore it is not out of fear or selfishness than mankind formed society but out of the pursuit of justice. In his own words, “Men are born for the sake of other men, so that they may be able to assist one another.” Just as mankind’s ability to reason asserted the theory of natural law, our advanced ability to communicate asserted our social nature. Justice is therefore the mediator between natural law and the community that must be governed by that law in order to function. As Cicero wrote, “[Justice’s] importance is so great, that even those who live by wickedness and crime can get on without some small element of justice … if the one called the pirate captain should not divide plunder impartially, he would be either deserted or murdered by his comrades.”
It could therefore be said that Cicero’s social compact was as follows: Society formed so that mankind might exercise their natural and divine ability to reason and their need for companionship. This comes with certain obligations to one’s family, faith, and country (Cicero believed one was more likely to find companionship with their own kind), to the chagrin of some contemporary liberals and libertarians. For without these obligations, every man would be out for himself, society would collapse, and mankind would return to “bare living”. There would be no social contract. It is worth noting, too, that Cicero identified two types of injustice. The first is merely causing harm. The second is abandoning obligations and therefore allowing one to be harmed. In other words, just as murder is obviously an injustice, so is witnessing a murder and making no attempt to prevent it.
Thomas Hobbes, by comparison, was particularly critical of mankind in the state of nature. He famously described life in nature (And thus outside of society and compact) as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Although skeptical of Calvinism, Hobbes would have agreed with them when it came to the total depravity of man, that humans are naturally selfish and power hungry. And if you tried to argue with his pessimistically realistic view, he might have argued “Why do they always carry arms and why do they have keys to lock their doors?” Thus the theory that arose from this view is a little different than the Social Compact we are accustomed to hearing. According to Hobbes, mankind needed government and the rule of law to keep our selfish tendencies in check, less mankind be in a constant “war of all against all.. The logical conclusion thereafter was that the governed did not have a right to revolution or rebellion until the moment government threatened to deprive them of life itself. In his own words, “Human affairs cannot be without inconvenience,” and it is far better that those inconveniences be tolerated than to undergo a revolution akin to the chaotic natural state every time government does not uphold a natural right.
For Rousseau’s part, in his work The Social Contract, he was far more optimistic on the nature of man. He believed that man was fundamentally compassionate and virtuous in a state of nature but that they were driven towards evil by outside influences and inequality. Property, rather than being one of the fundamental rights that predate society as Hobbes and Locke believed, had no existence prior to the social compact, and that those with the most property naturally became the governors. Therefore Rousseau advocated for complete equality (Except for women, who he thought less rational) and absolute democracy to carry out “the general will” as necessary for government to operate within the morality of the social contract. Something else to note about Rousseau’s philosophy is that, despite his very otherwise liberal ideas, he did not believe freedom should be defined as having the ability to make more choices. Rather, freedom was the personal triumph of reason over instinct.
Finally, we get to John Locke, who was arguably the philosopher that influenced the American Constitution the most. Locke is something of a middle ground between Thomas Hobbes and Rousseau, though he came before the latter and after the former. Indeed, while Hobbes wrote in the context of the bloody and fruitless English Civil War, Locke wrote in the context of the Glorious or Bloodless Revolution of 1688. Locke therefore rejected the authoritarianism of Hobbes, advocating instead for popular sovereignty. That is, the whole people hold political power, not a mere few with “divine right” to rule, and that government could only rule by the consent of the governed with respect to the natural rights of life, liberty, and property (This rhetoric might be sounding familiar to you). And how would a whole people rule without descending into anarchy or mob rule? Why, by social contract, naturally.
However, Locke did not share Rousseau’s optimism in regards to human nature. Rather than saying man was either inherently good or inherently evil, Locke believed man was at birth a “blank slate” and that his character would thereafter be shaped entirely by experience. Psychologists now might suggest he was half right, that character is a product of both nature and nurture, but Locke’s observation more or less stands in this sense: Some people are inclined towards goodness and some inclined towards selfishness, at least in given circumstances. This inclination towards selfishness was nonetheless enough to make Locke agree with Hobbes that the state of nature was miserable and therefore led to the rise of society. Where Locke disagreed fundamentally was that man should surrender any of his rights when entering into society. A man could only be deprived of his fundamental rights if he violated his end of social compact by breaking a law of society. In other words, if a man trespasses, only then may he be imprisoned and deprived of liberty. If a man steals, only then may he be deprived of property. If a man murders, only then may he be executed and deprived of life.
Lastly, I will bring up the philosopher who most directly influenced the American Revolution, even if many of the founding fathers disliked him: Thomas Paine. Paine took the social compact a bit more literally than the European counterparts had probably intended. According to Paine, not all societies had a contract because, while some governments arose out of society, other governments arose over society. For a government to arise out of society, each individual had to make an agreement—a social compact—with the rest of the individuals in society. For a government to arise over society, however, entails conquest. Paine claimed that Great Britain was the latter example since the Norman conquest of 1066 and therefore he denied the existence of the Ancient Constitution, but that is a matter deserving of its own article. Paine did importantly advocate for a written Constitution, and wrote that a constitution was not an act of government but an antecedent to government, a pre-made agreement that clearly defines when the government itself has violated its end of the social compact, at which points Paine believed revolution was justified.
Thus we have five philosophers with massively differing worldviews all coming to the same conclusion: Society is a contract between the government and the governed, each with obligations and led by natural law. And while I would not agree with any one of these five entirely, each has highly valuable observations that I would encourage further exploration of. Except, perhaps, Rousseau. II will end, on that note, with a quote Voltaire: “The operation of burning [The Social Contract by Rousseau] was perhaps as odious as that of writing it.”
Sources
Cicéron, Author: et al. “Cicero On the Commonwealth and On the Laws.” Usakochan PDF, usakochan.net/download/cicero-on-the-commonwealth-and-on-the-laws-cambridge-texts-in-the-history-of-political-thought/.
Hobbes, Thomas. “Leviathan.” Gutenberg. Gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207- h.htm
Locke, John. “SECOND TREATISE OF GOVERNMENT by JOHN LOCKE.” The Project Gutenberg EBook of Second Treatise Of Government By John Locke., www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm.
Meany, Paul. “Why the Founders' Favorite Philosopher Was Cicero: Paul Meany.” FEE Freeman Article, Foundation for Economic Education, 31 May 2018, fee.org/articles/why-the-founders-favorite-philosopher-was-cicero/.
Paine, Thomas. “The Rights of Man.” Thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/The-Rights-of-Man-by-Thomas-Paine.pdf
Rousseau, Jean Jacque. “The Social Contract and Discourses.” Online Library of Liberty, oll.libertyfund.org/title/cole-the-social-contract-and-discourses.
“Social Contract Theory.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/#H1.
“Social Contract.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/topic/social-contract.
Comments