综合英语.西方思想经典选读(常俊跃黄滔)_Text B Social Compact and Law（1 / 1）_综合英语.西方思想经典选读最新章节免费阅读无弹窗

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Pre-reading

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (June 1712-July 1778) was a Swissborn philosopher, author, political theorist, composer, and ranked one of the greatest figures of the French Enlightenment. At age 30, Rousseau moved to Paris where he joined Denis Diderot at the center of the philosophies. His first major work, Discourse on the Arts and Sciences (1750), argued that man is good by nature but has been corrupted by society and civilization. His light opera The Cunning Man (1752) was widely admired.

In Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men (1754), he argued against Thomas Hobbes that human life before the formation of societies was healthy, happy, and free and that vice arose as the result of social organization and especially the introduction of private property. Civil society, he held, comes into being only to ensure peace and to protect property, which not everyone has; it thus represents a fraudulent social contract that reinforces inequality.

In The Social Contract (1762), which begins with the memorable line, Man was born free, but he is everywhere in chains. Rousseau argues that a civil society based on a genuine social contract rather than a fraudulent one would provide people with a better kind of freedom in exchange for their natural independence, namely, political liberty, which he understands as obedience to a self-imposed law created by the general will.

In 1762 the publication of Emile, a treatise on education, produced outrage, and Rousseau was forced to flee to Switzerland. He began showing signs of mental instability in 1767, and he died insane. Confessions of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1770), which he modeled on the work of the same title by St. Augustine, is among the most famous autobiographies.

Rousseau’s immense influence arises from his being the first true philosopher of Romanticism. In his many themes that came to dominate intellectual life of the next one hundred years are first found: the lost unity of humankind and nature; the elevation of feeling and innocence and the downgrading of the intellect; a dynamic conception of human history and its different stages; a faith in teleology and in the possibility of recapturing a vanished freedom.

The following passage is taken from the book TheSocial Contract.

Prompts for Your Reading

1.When and why do men need to unite and direct existing forces?

2.For what fundamental problem does The Social Contract provide the solution?

3.What would be the consequences of the violation of the social compact?

4.How can the clauses of the social compact be understood in a simple way?

5.On what occasion would the association necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical?

6.How does the author define Republic, State, Sovereign and Power?

7.If social compact gives existence and life to the body politic, what does Law give to it? How important is law to society?

8.Why is there a sure need for conventions and laws in the human world?

9.How does the author define law?

10.Why does the author say that it cannot be asked whose business it is to make laws?

11.Who should be the author of law and why?

12.How does the author describe the relationship between the individual and the republic?

Social Compact1

[1] I suppose men to have reached the point at which the obstacles in the way of their preservation in the state of nature show their power of resistance to be greater than the resources at the disposal of each individual for his maintenance in that state. That primitive condition can then subsist no longer; and the human race would perish unless it changed its manner of existence.

[2] But, as men cannot engender new forces, but only unite and direct existing ones, they have no other means of preserving themselves than the formation, by aggregation, of a sum of forces great enough to overcome the resistance. These they have to bring into play by means of a single motive power, and cause to act in concert. 1

[3] This sum of forces can arise only where several persons come together: but, as the force and liberty of each man are the chief instruments of his self-preservation, how can he pledge them without harming his own interests, and neglecting the care he owes to himself? This difficulty, in its bearing on my present subject, may be stated in the following terms:

[4]“The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before.” This is the fundamental problem for which The Social Contract provides the solution.

[5] The clauses of this contract are so determined by the nature of the act that the slightest modification would make them vain and ineffective; so that, although they have perhaps never been formally set forth, they are everywhere the same and everywhere tacitly admitted and recognized, until, on the violation of the social compact, each regains his original rights and resumes his natural liberty, while losing the conventional liberty in favor of which he renounced it.

[6] These clauses, properly understood, may be reduced to one — the total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community; for, in the first place, as each gives himself absolutely, the conditions are the same for all; and, this being so, no one has any interest in making them burdensome to others.

[7] Moreover, the alienation being without reserve, the union is as perfect as it can be, and no associate has anything more to demand: for, if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative2 or tyrannical3.

[8] Finally, each man, in giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody; and as there is no associate over whom he does not acquire the same right as he yields others over himself, he gains an equivalent for everything he loses, and an increase of force for the preservation of what he has.

[9] If then we discard from the social compact what is not of its essence, we shall find that it reduces itself to the following terms:

[10]“Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole. ”

[11] At once, in place of the individual personality of each contracting party, this act of association creates a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes, and receiving from this act its unity, its common identity, its life and its will. This public person, so formed by the union of all other persons formerly took the name of city, and now takes that of Republic or body politic4; it is called by its members State when passive, Sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself. Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and severally are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State. But these terms are often confused and taken one for another: it is enough to know how to distinguish them when they are being used with precision.

Law

[12] By the social compact we have given the body politic existence and life; we have now by legislation to give it movement and will. For the original act by which the body is formed and united still in no respect determines what it ought to do for its preservation.

[13] What is well and in conformity with5 order is so by the nature of things and independently of human conventions. All justice comes from God, who is its sole source; but if we knew how to receive so high an inspiration, we should need neither government nor laws. Doubtless, there is a universal justice emanating from6 reason alone; but this justice, to be admitted among us, must be mutual. Humanly speaking, in default of natural sanctions, the laws of justice are ineffective among men: they merely make for the good of the wicked and the undoing of the just, when the just man observes them towards everybody and nobody observes them towards him. Conventions and laws are therefore needed to join rights to duties and refer justice to its object. In the state of nature, where everything is common, I owe nothing to him whom I have promised nothing; I recognize as belonging to others only what is of no use to me. In the state of society all rights are fixed by law, and the case becomes different.

[14] But what, after all, is a law? As long as we remain satisfied with attaching purely metaphysical7 ideas to the word, we shall go on arguing without arriving at an understanding; and when we have defined a law of nature, we shall be no nearer the definition of a law of the State.

[15] I have already said that there can be no general will directed to a particular object. Such an object must be either within or outside the State. If outside, a will which is alien to it cannot be, in relation to it, general; if within, it is part of the State, and in that case there arises a relation between whole and part which makes them two separate beings, of which the part is one, and the whole minus the part the other. But the whole minus a part cannot be the whole; and while this relation persists, there can be no whole, but only two unequal parts; and it follows that the will of one is no longer in any respect general in relation to the other.

[16] But when the whole people decrees8 for the whole people, it is considering only itself; and if a relation is then formed, it is between two aspects of the entire object, without there being any division of the whole. In that case the matter about which the decree is made is, like the decreeing will, general. This act is what I call a law.

[17] When I say that the object of laws is always general, I mean that law considers subjects en masse and actions in the abstract, and never a particular person or action. Thus the law may indeed decree that there shall be privileges, but cannot confer them on anybody by name. It may set up several classes of citizens, and even lay down the qualifications for membership of these classes, but it cannot nominate such and such persons as belonging to them; it may establish a monarchical9 government and hereditary10 succession, but it cannot choose a king, or nominate a royal family. In a word, no function which has a particular object belongs to the legislative11 power.

[18] On this view, we at once see that it can no longer be asked whose business it is to make laws, since they are acts of the general will; nor whether the prince is above the law, since he is a member of the State; nor whether the law can be unjust, since no one is unjust to himself; nor how we can be both free and subject to the laws, since they are but registers of our wills.

[19] We see further that, as the law unites universality of will with universality of object, what a man, whoever he be, commands of his own motion cannot be a law; and even what the Sovereign commands with regard to a particular matter is no nearer being a law, but is a decree, an act, not of sovereignty, but of magistracy.

[20] I therefore give the name “Republic” to every State that is governed by laws, no matter what the form of its administration may be: for only in such a case does the public interest govern, and the republic ranks as a reality. Every legitimate government is republican; what government is I will explain later on.

[21] Laws are, properly speaking, only the conditions of civil association. The people, being subject to the laws, ought to be their author: the conditions of the society ought to be regulated solely by those who come together to form it. But how are they to regulate them? Is it to be by common agreement, by a sudden inspiration? Has the body politic an organ to declare its will? Who can give it the foresight to formulate and announce its acts in advance? Or how is it to announce them in the hour of need? How can a blind multitude, which often does not know what it wills, because it rarely knows what is good for it, carry out for itself so great and difficult an enterprise as a system of legislation? Of itself the people wills always the good, but of itself it by no means always sees it. The general will is always in the right, but the judgment which guides it is not always enlightened. It must be got to see objects as they are, and sometimes as they ought to appear to it; it must be shown the good road it is in search of, secured from the seductive influences of individual wills, taught to see times and spaces as a series, and made to weigh the attractions of present and sensible advantages against the danger of distant and hidden evils. The individuals see the good they reject; the public wills the good it does not see. All stand equally in need of guidance. The former must be compelled to bring their wills into conformity with their reason; the latter must be taught to know what it wills. If that is done, public enlightenment leads to the union of understanding and will in the social body: the parts are made to work exactly together, and the whole is raised to its highest power. This makes a legislator necessary.

Notes

1.compact: a signed written agreement between two or more parties (nations) to perform some action

2.inoperative: (rule, principle, or tax) does not work anymore or cannot be made to work

3.tyrannical: someone who is severe or unfair toward the people that he / she has authority over; a government that acts without considering the wishes of its people and treats them cruelly or unfairly

4.body politic: a politically organized body of people under a single government

5.in conformity with: according to; in line with

6.to emanate from: to originate from

7.metaphysical: relating to metaphysics, highly abstract and overly theoretical

8.decree: an official order or decision, especially one made by the ruler of a country

9.monarchical: ruled by or having the supreme power resting with a monarch

10.hereditary: inherited or inheritable by established rules (usually legal rules) of descent

11.legislative: involving or relating to the process of making and passing laws

Questions for Further Thinking

1.According to Rousseau, the Social Compact aims “to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before.” What’s your understanding of it?

2.To what extent do you think people should have free will?

3.Rousseau argues for “the total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community”. In what way is this idea similar to the idea of the Commonwealth?

4.Rousseau states that “each man, in giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody”. What is the paradoxical truth in this statement?

5.In Andersen’s The Emperor’s New Clothes, no one dares to say that the Emperor doesn’t wear clothes until a child cries out, “But he isn’t wearing anything at all!” Can you interpret this story with Rousseau’s theory of social compact and law?

6.At the end of the passage, Rousseau points to the necessity of a legislator. What do you think should be the duty of the legislator? What kind person shall be trusted as a legislator?

7.In Rousseau’s view, if we knew how to receive justice, we should need neither government nor laws. Do you agree? How do you think justice works in the real world?

8.How do you understand the principle of playing by the rule from the perspective of social compact and law?

9.Besides laws and rules, do you think customs, religions and other cultural elements can also work for social order? How do they work?

After-reading Assignment

Oral Work

1.Besides contractual relationship in social and public arenas expounded by Rousseau, each individual is surrounded by various contractual relationships in their private life as well. There are morals, norms, conventions, etc. that regulate people’s behavior and safeguards social harmony. Examine some implicit or explicit contractual relationships in your academic or private life and tell how contracts may influence your life and behavior.

2.Many people enjoy roadside BBQ so much, but it may also cause many side-effects such as noise, smoke and traffic hazards. It has long been a thorny problem for authorities to regulate the roadside BBQ stalls. What is the crux of this problem? Organize a mock public hearing in class to look into this issue and try to put forward a solution that would take care of the interest of everyone involved.

3.In recent years, many sociologists in China believe measures should be taken to cultivate contractual spirit in our society. What is meant by contractual spirit? Why is it considered necessary and valuable to the Chinese society? Research into this topic and present your findings to your class.

Written Work

1.Anthropologist Edward T. Hall, when explaining how different cultural contexts work differently, pointed out that although in the context of today’s globalization, the differences tend to be small, there still exist distinct cultural differences in terms of contractual relationship. Check Hall’s theory, find related evidence and write a passage comparing contractual relationships in two different cultures.

2.Since there are no perfect contracts, people always have to improve them. Work in a group and study some school regulations, evaluate their validity and effectiveness. Could some clauses be changed or improved? Revise some clauses if necessary. Pay attention to the wording and organization of the clauses.

3.If social compact and law are intended to safeguard social order and harmony, what could be the consequences of breaking them? Write an essay of cause and effect to elaborate the consequences of defying or violating social compact.