Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau opens his thesis On the Social Contract by claiming “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains”(S.C. 882). At first glance, this statement is contradictory. It is a universal truth that every human is born free and remains that way throughout his or her life, and should never be restricted or dominated by another’s control. Rousseau’s ideas, however, aim to challenge this notion of freedom, particularly in exploring how an individual’s freedom is affected by society. His political philosophy discussed in both treatises Discourse on the Origin of Inequality and On the Social Contract, focuses on the impact of society on the individual psychologically and physically by comparing the state of man in nature as a moral savage, and the state of man as a citizen as part of the sovereign. In the Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau observes the natural state of man living in a world in which men are free of political organizations and societies. However, because of the natural advancement of the human mind driven by reason, pity, self-preservation, and perfectibility, inequality inevitably arises between men while living among each other, and becomes perpetuated by the development of laws and property, societal constraints. His On the Social Contract further expands the effect of these societal constraints on the individual overall. Rousseau asserts that instituted political systems inescapably shape our behavior, which is why he would conclude that man seems to be everywhere in chains, conforming to societal norms. However, men in chains should not be understood literally. For, although entering into a social contract causes a restraint on individuality, humans in return are offered benefits from society, especially the necessary civil freedoms of peace and security.
Previous philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke attempted to examine man in the state of nature, but did so in a way not plausible to Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In Hobbes’ state of nature, man lived in anarchy, immorally living by of self-interest, and only halted by the fear of death. For Locke, man in the state of nature is also frenzied, and regulations became demanded by humans in order to escape chaos. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s hypothetical state of nature for man is not portrayed as disordered. In Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, he observes man in the event that political institutions were ever created. Without any regime, man is similar to animals, savage, unaware of good and evil, solely motivated by pity and self-preservation. Man was not aware of living by ethics and reason. However, they are not brutishly savage in the way Thomas Hobbes identifies them. Men, according to Rousseau, lived free of conflict because society had not corrupted them. However, in addition to pity and self-preservation, man also has perfectibility. Perfectibility is the natural desire man has to better himself, whether by means of his self or by means of others. By bettering himself, man also ultimately begins to want to control others. This, and the development of reason and language, are the reasons why man starts to become associated with others. Rousseau identifies that when men start to develop their personal rationale, and begin to live among others, they desire domination over their peers. Man’s self-preservation transforms into amour propre, the awareness of oneself in comparison to others. The man is no longer the savage who only cares for survival, living with physical freedom, but rather the civilized man who cares about others’ opinions of him. According to Rousseau, the development of amour propre is detrimental and signals the moment when men slowly began to become more susceptible to community rather than remaining free. An inequality arose from this, that man increasingly began to want to dominate those around him, first by means of property. Rousseau notes that “The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society” (D.I. 851). Through the first acquisition of property, man laid the first restrictions between what is defined as his and for others. The whole world is no longer his playground. The division of property prompted the development of laws, which Rousseau defines as the development of moral inequality. Rousseau further concludes that since “inequality is practically non-existent in the state of nature, it derives its force and growth from the development of our faculties and the progress of the human mind, and eventually becomes stable and legitimate through the establishment of property and laws” (D.I. 866). Developing laws and entering into society is rational, but nevertheless harmful to individuality.
Toward the conclusion of the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Jean-Jacques Rousseau highlights how the savage man’s freedom starts to transform from physical freedom to civil freedom. When men start to live amongst each other, their individual desire for self-preservation and perfectibility are sacrificed. No longer can man solely rely on his own desires to survive, but rather adapt to co-existing with others. In essence, a man’s physical freedom, living by one’s own desires, diminishes and converts into a new type of freedom. Rousseau’s focus in On the Social Contract is to criticize this newfound civil freedom. Rousseau declares that as humans naturally start to come together, they subconsciously enter into a social contract in order to coincide with each other. Through this social contract, men sacrifice their self-interests for the general interest of their community. It is essential for men to come together and agree upon the social constraints to live together by. Rousseau describes that in creating the social contract, each man “puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will,…, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole” (S.C. 887). Although man now has restraint to behavior, man does gain civil freedom by agreeing to live by this general will. Rousseau summarizes that, “what man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses” (S.C. 889). When entering into the social contract, the restraints on our behavior make it possible to live in a community with minimal quarrel. This social contract is necessary in order for man to benefit from losing his physical freedoms. Also, every man must obey the social contract. It is essential that "for the social compact to avoid being an empty formula, it tacitly entails the commitment—which alone can give force to the others– that whoever refuses to obey the general will be forced to do so by the entire body. This means merely that he will be forced to be free” (S.C. 889). Rousseau is stating that because each man is restricting his personal liberty for the benefit of others, it is unfair to those who are obeying for one person to betray the social contract. Because each man is required to obey the laws, each man is forced to be free. He is forced to live by his civil freedom. Rousseau is not outwardly against society as long as every person, including the sovereign, follows the social contract and respects the general will.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, from his Discourse on Origin of Inequality to the On the Social Contract, examined how man’s natural state of freedom transformed from complete self-sufficiency to becoming influenced by society. Rousseau firmly believed that society is controlled by inequality, dependency, and was harmful to self-esteem. Because the formulation of society was inevitable, the only solution to living in harmony was through the social contract. Although man can no longer live freely (in the physical sense) to do as he pleases, he still gains peace and protection through his civil freedom, which is essential for survival.