Que) Rousseau’s general will is the Leviathan with it’s head chopped off.” It is true? Give reasons for your answer.
Ans) Comparison of Rousseau with Hobbes and Locke –
Rousseau’s sovereign Hobbes’ headless Leviathan
Introduction – From a comparative study of the ideologies of these three compromise Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, it is clear that the compromise theory of Hobbes and Locke is completely opposite to each other and Rousseau has tried to coordinate the ideas of Hobbes and Locke in his compromise theory. In this way, Rousseau’s thoughts are at some places similar to those of Hobbes and at others similar to those of Locke.
Similarities between Hobbes and Rousseau –
The ideas related to sovereignty of Hobbes and Rousseau are similar to a great extent. The characteristics of the general will described by Rousseau are almost the same as those described by Hobbes in his Sovereign. The only difference is that Hobbes’s sovereign is a human god and Rousseau believes that the sovereign resides in the general will. Therefore, Vahan’s statement is correct that “If the head of Hobbes’s human god (Leviathan) were to be cut off, that would be Rousseau’s general wish.”
The similarities between Hobbes and Rousseau’s sovereign are as follows;
- Like Hobbes, Rousseau also considers the general will as absolute.
- Hobbes’s quality of indivisibility of the human god is also found in Rousseau’s general will.
- Like Hobbes’s sovereignty, Rousseau also considers his general will to be non-transferable, transfer of which means the disappearance of sovereignty.
- Like Hobbes, Rousseau also considers sovereignty as permanent.
- Another characteristic of Hobbes’s sovereign is found in Rousseau’s analysis of general will and that is unity.
- Like Hobbes, Rousseau also discusses only one agreement, as a result of which both state and society arise, he does not discuss two agreements like Locke.
- Like Hobbes, Rousseau also calls general will as judicial will and propounds that the sovereign is always just.
- Apart from all this, the biggest similarity between Hobbes and Rousseau is that in Rousseau’s social contract itself, like Hobbes, a person surrenders all his powers and the general will arising as a result of the contract is as autocratic as Hobbes’s Leviathan. Rousseau also propounds that the state has authority over the complete life of the individuals and the basic duty of the individual is to follow the orders of the state.
From one point of view, Rousseau’s sovereign is even more autocratic than Hobbes. While giving unlimited power to the state, Hobbes leaves the individual free to oppose the state in the interest of the right of self-defense, but Rousseau does not in any case provide the individual the right to oppose the state. In his view the general will represents the ideal desires of individuals and hence cannot be wrong in any situation.
In the language of Rousseau himself, “Just as nature has given man the right to complete control over the various components of his body, in the same way the social contract has given the political organism (the general will) complete control over the various components (individuals) of his body. “Have been given autocratic powers.”
Differences between Hobbes and Rousseau:
Despite the above mentioned similarities in the ideology of Hobbes, the differences between these two thinkers are more important.
Firstly, according to Hobbes, a person surrenders his powers to a particular person or group, which is not a party to the contract but is outside it, but according to Rousseau, a person does not surrender his powers to any individual group but to the entire society. Rousseau might say that because each person devotes himself to the whole, not to any individual, whatever he gives, he gets back as a member of a sovereign society and thus in the state. He also remains as free as he was before. There is no reduction in the freedom of an individual by the establishment of Rousseau’s political society, but due to the surrender of powers to an external authority in Hobbes’ agreement, Hobbes cannot claim like Rousseau that even after the agreement, the individual remains equally free. is as much as it was before.
Thus, Rousseau’s sovereign is the entire society whereas Hobbes’s is only an individual.
Secondly, Hobbes’s sovereign has authority over both legislative and executive powers and hence he is
autocratic and the subjects, slaves, but Rousseau’s sovereign society exercises only legislative powers, he hands over the executive powers to the government which is his agent or Are servants. In Rousseau
there is a distinction between the sovereign state and government, whereas in Hobbes these two are
equivalent.
there is a distinction between the sovereign state and government, whereas in Hobbes these two are
equivalent.
Thus, under the contract of both Hobbes and Rousseau, although the individual surrenders all his powers, the difference is that even after this surrender, Rousseau keeps the individual’s freedom intact, under the contract of Hobbes, the individual’s freedom is destroyed.
Conclusion-
From this perspective, it has been said in relation to Rousseau’s theory that “Rousseau’s sovereign is Hobbes’s Leviathan, whose head has been cut off.” Rousseau himself had given the picture of ‘Leviathan with severed head’ on the cover page of the first edition of his ‘Social Contract’. The autocratic power that Hobbes gave to the king, Rousseau has given to the entire public or the entire society.
…..Thank You…..