Main content
Course: Wireless Philosophy > Unit 10
Lesson 6: Rousseau’s defense of democracyRousseau’s defense of democracy
In this Wireless Philosophy video, Geoff Pynn (Elgin Community College) examines Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s argument for democracy and the concept of “the general will,” and questions whether Rousseau truly reconciles state authority with individual freedom.
View our Democracy learning module and other videos in this series here: https://www.wi-phi.com. Created by Gaurav Vazirani.
Video transcript
[Tense music] Hi, I'm Geoff Pynn. I teach Philosophy
at Elgin Community College. In this video,
I'm going to talk about Rousseau's Defense of Democracy. Plato argued that
democracy leads to disaster. He thought an elite class
of guardians should rule, instead. Their natural abilities, extensive
training and austere living conditions would guarantee that they would rule
in the best interest of society as a whole. But Plato’s proposal leaves
the rest of us with no say over the conditions of our own lives. We're forced to defer to the
judgments of our superiors and accept the rules they give us,
whatever we think of them. For most modern thinkers,
this is a fatal flaw. We think that individual freedom
is essential to a good society and that part of the state’s role
is to safeguard our liberties. But how, then, can the state
legitimately tell us what to do? This is a difficult problem to resolve. No one has stated the problem
more dramatically than the French philosopher
Jean-Jacques Rousseau. “Man is born free,” he wrote,
“but everywhere is in chains.” How, Rousseau asks, can the constraints
imposed by the state be justified, when people have a right to be free? Rousseau argued that only
in a truly democratic society could free people be legitimately ruled. Democracy, for Rousseau, holds the key to
justifying state authority. Central to Rousseau’s theory
is what he called the general will. When you pursue your own interest, say, by driving your car to
work in order to get there on time, you’re acting in accordance
with your particular will. You can also step outside yourself and consider what’s
in everybody’s interest. From this outside
perspective, you might conclude that it would be best to conserve fuel and take the bus to work instead. In Rousseau’s terms,
this means that taking the bus is the general will. The general will is not merely
the sum of everybody’s particular wills. Maybe everybody prefers to drive to work. If it would be bad for all of us
by increasing traffic and pollution, then it’s still not the general will. The general will is
what’s truly best for everyone given that we live in society. If it’s best for everyone in
society to take the bus to work, then that’s the general will, even if most people
would prefer to drive instead. The purpose of the state
is to advance the general will. But how can we know what that means? Rousseau argued that
the best way to discover what’s in everybody’s interest
is to ask everyone. He thought that
we discover the general will by discussing it among ourselves, and then taking a vote on what
each of us thinks is best: “Each man, in giving his vote,
states his opinion on that point; and the general will is found
by counting votes.” For this to work, people can’t just vote
for the policies that they want. If each of us votes to drive to work,
then the policy that prevails will be at odds with the general will. Instead, we have to vote on
what we think is best, not just for ourselves, but for everyone. Once we discover the general will this way,
we'll recognize that it benefits us all, and choose to adopt it as a law. By choosing laws through
this democratic process, we freely accept the “chains”
that the law lays upon us. But why does Rousseau think
that people will vote in the right spirit? And why does he think they
will choose to accept the outcome even if they don't like it? The answer to both
questions lies in his views about what a truly democratic society requires. First, democratic citizens
must receive extensive education in patriotism and civic virtue,
beginning at an early age. “If children are … imbued with
the laws of the state and the precepts of the general will;
if they are taught to respect these above all things …
we cannot doubt that they will learn to cherish one another mutually
as brothers, [and] to will nothing contrary to the will of society.” In other words, if we're
successfully trained to respect the general will
“above all other things” and to “will nothing contrary” to it then we will cast our votes
with the appropriate intention and accept the outcome of the vote. Second, a truly democratic society
must be free of significant inequality. “No citizen shall ever be rich enough
to buy another and none poor enough
to be forced to sell himself.” Otherwise, our interests
will often conflict. Policies that favor the rich undermine
the interests of the poor and vice versa. In an egalitarian society, Rousseau
thought, there would be no such conflicts. Policies that benefit me
would also benefit you, because we’d have similar interests. Plus, when you and I
are in similar positions, it’s not difficult to perceive
what benefits us both. Rousseau envisioned a society
where our equality makes it relatively easy to discern
what policies are in our mutual benefit. Once we've figured out
what these policies are, our rational self-interest
and respect for each other will lead us to accept them. Rousseau’s vision is
appealing in many ways, but it's also quite demanding. A legitimate state requires
rigorous moral education and genuine economic equality. Plus, his democratic system
requires that all laws be established through popular vote. No modern state that calls itself
a democracy, meets these conditions. Some anarchists have embraced
Rousseau’s account, since it seems to imply that
no actual states are legitimate. Plus, isn’t Rousseau being overly
optimistic about the effects of equality? Serious conflicts of interest
can still arise among economic equals. And differences of opinion about morality,
religion and values are likely to cause deep disagreements about which
policies are in our common interest. Rousseau addressed some of these issues. All religions were to be tolerated except those that preach intolerance. An official censor would
enforce high moral standards and no political parties or
associations that lead people to identify with a group smaller than
society as a whole would be allowed. Given these restrictions,
it’s questionable how much Rousseu truly reconciles state authority
with individual freedom. Finally, consider those who vote
for the losing side in a question. Rousseau thought that,
once the vote was in, these people would see that they
were in error about the general will. But especially in a close vote,
it seems you could, instead, reasonably conclude
that the majority was wrong. Nonetheless, Rousseau held,
dissent from the general will would be tantamount to treason
and punishable by death. So you’d better change your mind
and accept the majority view! In Rousseau’s words,
you are “forced to be free.” But how can you be forced to be free?
Isn’t that a paradox? Still, Rousseau’s idea that democracy is
essential to reconcile individual freedom and state authority has
been extremely influential. So has his emphasis on the crucial role of
public education in a democratic society. By participating in a democratic process,
and agreeing to abide by its outcome, it seems that we are doing
something like giving our consent. Perhaps democratic participation
holds the key to understanding how the state can have authority over us, given our moral right to be free. What do you think? [Intense music]