Jean Jacques Rousseau- General Will

Introduction
Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) was the greatest thinker that the French produced.
He is regarded as a great champion of individualism, an advocate of revolutionary
changes, a defendant of the status quo, an incomparable democrat who recognized
autonomy, a believer in guided democracy and a romantic collectivist. In the entire
history of political theory, he was the most exciting and most provocative. By the very
magic of his style, no other political thinker could come anywhere near him. He was a
genius and a keen moralist who was ruthless in his criticism of eighteenth century
French society. Most of the French thinkers of the eighteenth century regarded liberty
as crucial to the individual’s development. Rousseau too reiterated this theme and
regarded liberty as central to his theoretical construct. But he believed that the freedom
that the noble savage enjoyed in the state of nature would be possible only under the
right kind of society governed by the “General Will”. By making the General Will
sovereign and individuals as participants in the General Will, Rousseau reconciled
authority with freedom as none before him had done. In the ‘Discourse on Political
Economy’, where he had first stated the concept of General Will, Rousseau said that
“General will always tends to the preservation and welfare of the whole and of every
part of society.

General Will
In the Social Contract, Rousseau portrayed the nature of the higher organization where
he attempted to show that a human being’s transformation need not always be for the
worse, provided the right kind of polity could be built. He was hopeful that the right
society would transform the noble savage to a humane person, immortalized by his
famous words, “Man is born free and is everywhere in chains”. The freedom that the
noble savage enjoyed in the state of nature would be possible only under the right kind
of society governed by the “General Will”. General Will according to him was a polity
that would aim for the general, rather than the particular, interests of its members.
The concept of ‘General Will’ is Rousseau’s positive solution to the evils of civil society.
The civil society, which was an outcome of the liberal natural law tradition, appeared to
Rousseau as something more than an instrument of exploitation. Man, who in the state
of nature, lived an innocent and purely savage life in isolation and had a few
elementary, easily satisfiable needs, discovered the utility and effectiveness of labor.
But with the technical progress and increase in population, men discovered the
advantage of division of labor which enabled them to pass from a subsistence economy
to an economy of productive development. Men started producing more than they
really needed. This is because they wanted not only present goods, but also the abstract
tokens possible and future goods. As a result of this, social inequalities created by
division of labor and other so called progressive institutions, were formalized and
institutionalized with the formation of a representative body, which really represented
the interests of the well-off class and formalized the class division and social
relationship. Here, Rousseau’s undynamic and almost reactionary view of economics
made him believe that one man’s wealth arose directly from the impoverishment of
another. Thus, the General Will was essentially an attempt by Rousseau to apply his
conception of human freedom (moral freedom) to political institutions.
Unlike Hobbes and Locke, he did not define freedom as merely absence of restraint or
coercion. Freedom, for Rousseau, was moral self-determination or the ability of the
individual to exercise his autonomy. Rousseau believed that submission to the General
Will attenuated freedom. Rousseau also distinguished between independence and
liberty. Anyone who was a master over others was not himself free. He regarded liberty
and equality as being interdependent. Unless people were equal they could not be free.
According to Riley (1998) the notions of the General Will and Particular Will were
elaborately used in the works of various eminent scholars between 1640 and 1715. But
Rousseau’s notion of General Will was secular rather than theological. Rousseau
distinguished his concept of general will from other types of human will. As Patrick Riley
has elucidated: “Rousseau himself insists that ‘the general will is always right’, that it is
‘the will that one has as a citizen’ when one thinks of the common good and not of one’s
own particular will as a private person”.
Subsequent writers have used the distinction between actual will and real will in order
to explicate Rousseau’s distinction between particular will and general will. The
existence of these two types of will is a source of conflict within the mind of man. Actual
will is motivated by his immediate, selfish interest. Real will is motivated by his ultimate,
collective interest. Actual will is reflected in his ‘lower self’; real will is reflected in his
‘higher self’. Actual will is transient, unstable and inconsistent; it changes from moment
to moment. Real will is stable, constant, consistent and determinate. Man’s freedom
consists in overcoming his actual will and following the direction of the real will. Real
will expresses his true freedom. It subordinates man’s self-interest to the interest of the
community. Actual will impels individuals to different directions but the Real will directs
them toward the common good. But the individual by himself is imperfect. At times he
may not be able to discriminate between his actual will and real will.
This dilemma is resolved by the transition from the ‘particular’ to the ‘general’ will. The
general will harmonizes the interests of each with those of all. It does not represent a
‘compromise’ or the convergence of diverse interests, but an expression of the highest
in every man. Man’s particular will may create confusion; but the general will always
shows him the right way.

Genesis of the General Will

Individual Community

Particular Will General Will

Actual Will Real Will

Motivated by the Motivated by the

Represents lower self Represents higher self

Transient Stable

Differs from individual Common to all members

Democrat or Totalitarian
Rousseau postulates absolute sovereignty of the ‘General Will’. He holds that individual
gets his true freedom by obeying the dictates of his real will; this authority is now
transferred to the General Will. When individual obeys the command of the General
Will, he may be required to suppress his actual will. Rousseau prescribes a paradoxical
solution: “Man can be forced to be free”.
Some writers tend to interpret this statement to imply that Rousseau gives unbridled
power to the state which enables it to exercise total control over all aspects of his life.
J.L.Talmon, Leon Duguit, Immanuel Kant, G.W.F.Hegal, Bertrand Russell and Alfred
Cobban allege that Rousseau was a totalitarian. On the other hand, some commentators
like G.D.H.Cole and A.D.Lindsay have drawn attention to Rousseau’s profound faith in
human freedom and consider him a democrat.
However, on closer analysis, it is revealed that Rousseau is basically a democrat,
sincerely devoted to human emancipation, and not a totalitarian inclined toward
suppression of human freedom. As a thinker, he felt drawn to the lowly, the weak, and
the oppressed and proclaimed liberty, justice and equality as the ends of law and
government. His theory of absolute sovereignty of the General Will simply implies that
man should submit to law and government when it is thoroughly committed to ultimate
good of the whole community. Moreover, totalitarianism is a late modern concept
which seeks to dominate all spheres of man’s life –political, economic, social, cultural,
educational, artistic, and so on; it tends to use all possible means of regimentation –
propaganda, concentration camps, brainwashing and widespread terror, etc. How can
we club Rousseau with such activities, for he was a man who always pleaded for
generosity, clemency and humanity!

Conclusion
Rousseau’s theory, like Marx’s, was international in character. It was the source of all
laws, and determined the relationships between its members. It was an end in itself and
also a means to an end. Burke referred to him as “the insane Socrates of the National
Assembly”. Many of the ideas of Rousseau were put into practice during the “later and
more terrible phases of the French Revolution”. He provided an excellent analysis of
human nature in politics. He refused to look at the individual as a supernatural entity.
There was no denying the fact that Rousseau’s political philosophy was one of the most
innovative, striking, remarkable, and brilliantly argued theories. His most spectacular
achievement was that he understood the pivotal problem that individuals faced in the
society.