The Social Contract

The Social Contract

When I read only a small portion of Jean Jacques Rousseau’s “The Social Contract”, I found myself rather intrigued with the concept of political society that he depicted. Rather than the typical monarchy or democracy, Rousseau proposed that a “sovereign” would be the best and most efficient form of political society. However, where would the structure of this political society be derived from? What would be the underlying groundwork of this so called “sovereign”? The foundation that this sovereign surged on is called a social contract, and in my opinion, this form of political society, though risky, may be the best form of political authority after the higher forms had been already determined. Of course by now, it will come to little surprise that you are questioning this contract as well as its structural make-up. According to Merriam-Webster, a social contract is an agreement amongst the people (or in terms of Rousseau, “citizens”) of a particular domain that results in the formation of the state or of an organized society with the prime motives being the desire for preservation. While this briefly outlines the configuration of the contract, the actual theory of it consists of so much more. However, it would not be a justice to dive straight into the theory before also explaining the origins of the contract itself. Throughout the first book of The Social Contract, Rousseau’s aim is to determine whether there can be a legitimate political authority. According to Rousseau, there can be, but it cannot be found in nature; in fact, the family is the only natural form of political authority where the ruler corresponds to the father and the people to the children. Natural political authority is neither found in force. Complying with force is not determined by your decision, but it is rather a necessity because of fear of the possible repercussions. For example, when a slave master enforced authority on his slaves, slaves responded and...