Social Contract Theory: Absolute Sovereignty or Popular Sovereignty

Aunindita Afrin

Course: Education: Education and Politics, 2023

Since the dawn of civilization, the question of what type of contract is suitable and necessary in
society has been a central concern. Among the numerous philosophers who delved into the
concept of the social contract, Thomas Hobbes and Rousseau stand out as significant proponents,
each with their distinctive perspectives. While their theories exhibit distinct characteristics, they
also share noteworthy similarities.

In general, Hobbes advocated for the necessity of exerting control over human nature to establish
an ideal society. In contrast, Rousseau argued for leaving control over individuals to ensure their
freedom while living within a societal framework. However, both Rousseau and Hobbes
championed a deterministic governing authority to safeguard the collective well-being in society.
This comparative discussion will explore the political philosophies of Hobbes and Rousseau in
terms of coercion and freedom. Additionally, it will delve into the relationship between politics
and education as they addressed in their social contract theories.

How Hobbes and Rousseau Differ from Each Other by Their Social Contract Theories:

Both of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) were influential
political philosophers of their own ages. They proposed distinguishing concepts of the social
contract in their famous books respectively, Leviathan(1651) and The Social Contract(1762).
They reflected contrasting perspectives on human nature, the role of government and the
structure of society. In this section I will discuss these distinctive aspects.

Understanding of Human Nature:

Before entering into the social contract theories, both Hobbes and Rousseau described how
human beings were in the state of nature. Nevertheless they have a contrasting view about human
nature.

On one hand, Hobbes presented a pessimistic perspective on human nature, portraying humans
as inherently self-interested and driven by the instinct of self-preservation. According to him, in
the hypothetical "state of nature," human beings are in constant competition, akin to a perpetual
"war," where "every man is enemy to every man," living in constant fear of death. This implies
that individuals are inherently inclined towards violence and destruction rather than compassion.
He famously described human life in this state as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"
(Hobbes, 2008, p. 84). Hobbes argued that without a powerful central authority, society would
inevitably spiral into a perpetual state of conflict and disorder.
On the other hand, Rousseau had a more optimistic view of human nature, contending that
individuals are essentially good but corrupted by society and its institution. According to him,
people are inherently not only driven by self-preservation but also by compassion and empathy.
He believed that they are "not naturally enemies" and can coexist harmoniously if society is
organized under the "authority of law" (Rousseau, 2008, p. 9). The hallmark of the state of
nature, as he envisioned it, is the complete physical freedom of individuals, granting them the
liberty to act as they please. However, this state also comes with the limitation that human beings
have not yet developed rationality or a sense of morality.

Purpose of Social Contract:

Hobbes indented the social contract aimed to establish a strong sovereign authority that would
uphold social order and prevent the "war of all against all." The central goal of this contract was
to guarantee security and avert the inherent disorder of the state of nature. Hobbes posited that all
individuals in a society would relinquish certain freedoms to a singular authority in exchange for
greater overall freedom. In return, this supreme authority, the sovereign, would ensure peace and
security by enforcing the necessary laws for the functioning of society.

Rousseau viewed the social contract as a mechanism for preserving individual freedom and
achieving a just and equitable society. He believed that the social contract should protect the
general will and promote the common good, permitting individuals to engage in the decision-
making process and maintain their inherent liberties. According to Rousseau, the social contract
represents an implicit agreement among individuals to establish a society and a governing body.
This agreement is founded on the principle that individuals willingly relinquish certain freedoms
and submit to the authority of the community for the greater good and the protection of their
natural rights. He referred to the collective body of all citizens as the "sovereign," and claims that
it should be considered in many ways to be like an individual person. While each individual has
a particular will that aims for his “private interest”, the sovereign expresses the general will that
aims for “the common good”. Concisely, In Rousseau's Social Contract Theory, the purpose of
the social contract is to uphold the general will and preserve the collective good of the
population.

The Sovereign and the Government:

In his book "Leviathan," Hobbes advocated for monarchy as the most effective form of
government, proposing the establishment of an absolute and powerful central authority that
would exercise complete control over the state. This governing body would be headed by a king
or monarch, and the government's power would be sovereign. The sovereign should possess
absolute and undivided authority, with the power to create and enforce laws without any
limitations or challenges from the subjects.
 His power cannot, without his consent, be transferred to another; …he cannot be accused
by any of his subjects, of injury; he cannot be punished by any of his subjects, of injury;
he cannot be punished by them, he is judge of what is necessary for peace; and judge of
doctrine; he is sole legislator; and supreme judge of controversies…(Hobbes, 2008,
p.132)

Consequently, individuals are not entitled to challenge any laws put forth by the supreme
authority. Hobbes, concerned primarily with upholding social order and averting conflicts, did
not hesitate to limit certain individual rights. In this type of government, citizens lack the
freedom to participate in state decision-making. As stated by Hobbes, "The legislator in all
commonwealths is only the sovereign" (Hobbes, 2008, chap. 26, p. 176).

Overall, in Hobbes' view, the sovereign functions as the ultimate authority, preventing
individuals from reverting to the chaotic state of nature by establishing and maintaining a
structured and orderly society through law enforcement and the protection of citizens' rights.

On the contrary, Rousseau advocated for a more participatory form of government, highlighting
the significance of popular sovereignty. He stated, "...each to all and all to each" (Rousseau,
2004, p. 35). This implies that the sovereign represents the "general will." While the Hobbesian
sovereign was seen as an absolute authority with the right to enforce laws upon citizens within a
state, Rousseau's concept of sovereignty differed, as it considered to reside in all the people of
the society as a collective.

Sovereignty…the exercise of the general will, can never be alienated; and that the
sovereign, which is simply a collective being, cannot be represent by anyone but itself-
power may be delegated, but the will cannot be…for the private will inclines by its very
nature towards partiality, and the general will towards equality”(Rousseau, 2004, p.26)

The people, as a component of sovereignty, manifest their sovereignty through their general will
rather than their individual will. The government's role is to align its actions with the general
will. Thus, the general will or sovereignty is active, while the government assumes a passive role
in the making and enforcement of laws. Rousseau advocated for a government that is
accountable to the people and that upholds individual liberties, enabling direct citizen
involvement in the decision-making process.

Equality and Freedom:

While considering the importance of equality and freedom among citizens within a society,
Hobbes and Rousseau offered distinct viewpoints. Hobbes argued that equality and freedom
could lead to conflicts among society's members because of inherent human selfishness and the
relentless pursuit of personal gain. This, he believed, could result in confrontations and the
potential destruction of human life. Hobbes explained that the idea of "everyone's war against
all" was not rooted in an innate hostility but arose from the perpetual potential for conflict
stemming from different individuals' attempts to secure their own interests. This situation, in
turn, was a consequence of the innate equality of all human beings. As a solution, Hobbes
asserted that all members of a society should relinquish certain freedoms to a central authority in
exchange for greater overall freedom. This, he contended, involved surrendering individual
freedom to the sovereignty to ensure protection and security. Consequently, individuals should
accept the governance of the state to avoid the potential chaos of the "state of nature."

Conversely, Rousseau believed that human beings are naturally endowed with freedom, but
society and its institutions curtail this freedom through the imposition of laws without due
consideration for the well-being of the people. Rousseau placed high value on individual
freedom and maintained that the social contract should safeguard natural rights and individual
liberty. However, he did not promote unrestricted exercise of personal will; instead, he proposed
the concept of the general will as a means to achieve the "common good." He underscored the
importance of preserving individual freedom within the framework of a just and equitable
society. Rousseau posited that obedience to a law that one prescribes for oneself constitutes
moral freedom (Rousseau, 2004, p. 20).

While both Hobbes and Rousseau addressed the social contract as a means of establishing a
stable society, their differing perspectives on human nature, the purpose of government, and
individual freedom led to distinct interpretations and implications for the structure and function
of the social contract.

Shared Similarities Between Hobbes and Rousseau In Terms of social Contract:

Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes, while holding differing opinions on human nature
and the role of government, share certain similarities in their interpretations of the social
contract. Both expressed concerns about the state of nature and highlighted the necessity of a
social contract to establish peace and order within a society. Despite advocating for different
degrees of citizen freedom, they both emphasized the advantages of relinquishing certain
freedoms to a central authority in exchange for greater freedom. These fundamental similarities
in their proposed social contracts will be further explored in this section.

From State of Nature to Social Contract:

Both Hobbes and Rousseau posited that in the state of nature, human beings were driven by self-
preservation. However, Hobbes contended that this self-preservation led to a state of chaos,
whereas Rousseau argued that in this state, humans were not only self-preserved but also
inherently compassionate toward others. Despite their opposing views on the fundamental nature
of human beings, both Rousseau and Hobbes asserted the necessity of the social contract in
transitioning from the state of nature to a more structured and secure civil society. They believed
that the social contract was a means of establishing a legitimate authority that could ensure the
protection and well-being of individuals within a community.

Surrender of Rights to a Certain Authority:

Rousseau and Hobbes both advocated for individuals to relinquish their natural rights to the
authority of the sovereign in a social contract. They both espoused "Authoritarianism" as the
concept of “blind submission to authority in politics and governance”, entailing the suppression
of individual freedom of thought and action. It involves centralizing “in the hands of a single
leader or small elite, whose decisions are taken without regard for the will of the people”
(Britannica, 2023).

Concerning submission to authority, Hobbes advocated for individuals to surrender specific

natural rights and freedoms to the state's authority, the sovereign, to ensure their safety and
protection. Similarly, Rousseau emphasized the surrender of certain freedoms or individual will
to the general will for the greater good. In this context, the sovereign, the body politic
(magistrates), and all members of society are required to accept the authority of the general will,
even if it entails sacrificing some individual liberties. Consequently, both Hobbes and Rousseau's
proposed social contracts exhibit authoritarian or deterministic elements to some extent. Despite
differing interpretations of the common good, they both highlighted the importance of
establishing a system or authority that would advance the well-being and stability of the entire
community.

While Rousseau and Hobbes had contrasting views on several aspects of the social contract, their
shared concerns about the transition from the state of nature to civil society and the need for a
legitimate governing authority underscored their common ground on the essential principles of
the social contract theory.

Relation Between Politics and Education:

Thomas Hobbes

Although Thomas Hobbes was not an educational philosopher “the only firm policy
recommendation he made in his Leviathan (1651) was for the immediate reform of university
teaching by the sovereign power” (Bejan, 2010, p-607).

In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes asserted that the people should respect the civil law established by
the sovereign. In a commonwealth, it becomes the responsibility of universities and teachers to
interpret the sovereign's civil law, ensuring the maintenance of peace within civic society.
Teachers are granted the authority to educate on matters of justice and injustice, aiming to foster
respect for the civil law.

He was also concerned that "false teachers" could be the cause of crime (Hobbes, 2008, ch.
27.11, p. 196). Hobbes believed that civil war was instigated by the erroneous guidance of
instructors in his contemporary social context. Hence, he advocated that "where the people are
not well instructed in their duty," the peace of the commonwealth would be perpetually disturbed
(Hobbes, 2008, 19:9, p. 126). He believed that interpreters of laws could aid citizens in
minimizing their faults. “He whose error proceeds from the authority of a teacher or an
interpreter of the law publicly authorized is not so faulty as he whose error proceedeth from a
peremptory pursuit of his own principles and reasoning” (Hobbes, 2008, 27:31, p.201).

While delineating the duty of "public ministers" in chapter 23, Hobbes elucidated that these
public ministers would educate the people on "their duty to the sovereign power" (Hobbes, 2008,
p. 159-160). It is the responsibility of these public ministers or teachers to inform individuals
about what is just and unjust under the authority of a specific sovereign. Similarly, individuals
need to be acquainted with civil laws because they are bound to these laws "by virtue of being
members of a particular commonwealth." ( Hobbes, 2008, 26:1, p.175) .

It is true that Hobbes asserted the importance of political education and the necessity of true
teachers for safeguard the sovereign, but what would be the power of a teacher in a monarchy?
Hobees intended that all laws need interpretation and the interpretation (even if it concerns the
unwritten, natural law) does not depend on moral philosophy but on state authority (moral
philosophy is the knowledge of civil law since virtue is to follow the natural laws that uphold the
power of the sovereign) (Hobbes, 2008, 26:21-22, p.183).

Teachers will teach, “law in general is not counsel, but command, nor a command of any man to
any man, but only of him whose command is addressed to one formally obliged to obey him”.
So, teachers will just follow the command of the sovereignty, CIVIL LAW, so that citizens can
learn “the distinction of right and wrong”( Hobbes, 2008, 26:2, 3, p.175-176) Therefore, Hobbes
believed that people need to know the necessity of submission their freedom to a supreme
authority.

Through the dissemination of information and ideas that align with the interests of the sovereign,
education can help prevent dissent and rebellion within the commonwealth. Hobbes believed that
controlling the content of education was essential to avoid the spread of “doctrines” that could
challenge the authority of the state. (Hobbes, 2008,29.3-13, p.213-216)

Finally in Hobbes words, It is therefore manifest that the instruction of the people dependeth
wholly on the right teaching of youth in the universities (Hobbes, 2008, 30:14, p.227). Hobbes
viewed education as a crucial tool for maintaining the stability and coherence of the
commonwealth by instilling obedience, promoting a shared political identity, and preventing
dissent and rebellion. Education, according to Hobbes, should prioritize the teachings that
reinforce the authority and interests of the sovereign to ensure the continued existence of a well-
ordered and secure commonwealth.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Rousseau acknowledges that it is important to transform people into citizens who will understand
benefit of submissing their particular will to the general will. Rousseau, in his book The Social
Contract proposed a superior intelligence, part of the sovereign, who will guide people to
understand their duty toward their state. Rousseau named this person the “lawgiver”. Rousseau
asserted that this lawgiver is a person who has to be “capable of changing […] human nature; of
transforming each individual, who by himself is a complete and solitary whole, into a part of a
greater whole from which that individual receives as it were his life and his being” (Rousseau,
2004, p.44). The lawgiver is the person who stays both inside and outside of the society, as
Rousseau explained, will accommodate with the present time for transforming it into a “distant
glory”( Rousseau, 2004, p.44). As a pedagogical device, the lawgiver represents an institution
that facilitates and protects the very processes of social preservation and renewal(Dahlbeck &
Lilija). Rousseau highlighted the issue that this educational approach should not involve coercion
or manipulation of either individuals or laws; otherwise, in such circumstances, "society will not
be either free or just"(Rousseau, 2004, p. 45). On the other hand, the teacher assumes a unique
role in harnessing the authority of the lawgiver by embracing a notion of the common good that
possesses the ability to transform individual wills into components of a general will. It is worth
recalling that while the political function of the lawgiver involves the enactment of laws or
serving as a sovereign (or magistrate), this role, which constitutes the republic, is not an inherent
part of its framework (Rousseau, 2004, II.7, p. 45). Consequently, the essence of education, and
consequently the role of the teacher, focuses on the establishment of the republic rather than its
governance. In a nutshell, Rousseau emphasized the need for a figure like the lawgiver, who
would aid in establishing and upholding a fair and equitable social contract through moral
education.

Conclusion
Despite being political philosophers from different paradigms, both Rousseau and Hobbes shared
concerns about the welfare of the citizens within a state. However, their models of sovereignty
differed in terms of the level of coercion and freedom. Although Hobbesian theory appears
overtly authoritarian, he deemed it the right solution for the era, emerging at the end of the Civil
War. He asserted that people should relinquish certain liberties to achieve peace in society.
Nevertheless, the feasibility of a single individual determining the best course for the welfare of
an entire state remains a point of contention. Similarly, his proposed educational methods
showcased a high degree of coercion, advocating for teaching in a deterministic manner that
stifled individuals' freedom to express their reasoning. While his envisioned sovereign model
might ensure societal stability, it could simultaneously impede societal progress.

Rousseau acknowledged this issue within his social contract theory and proposed a more
pluralistic sovereignty where people's opinions would be considered, but solely for the common
good. He opposed coercion in education, preferring his mythical figure, the "lawgiver," to
accommodate the present will of the citizens and gradually guide them toward the general will.
Although the concept of the general will appear constant, Rousseau allowed for the expression of
individual will within society to establish a just and equitable social order. In essence, Hobbes
championed a constrained society under absolute sovereignty, while Rousseau represented
popular sovereignty with the aspiration of establishing a more egalitarian and morally free
society.

Reference
Bejan, T. (2010). Teaching the Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes on education, Oxford Review of
Education, 36:5, 607-626. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2010.514438
Britannica, T. (2023). authoritarianism. Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/authoritarianism
Hobbes, T. (2008). Leviathan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rousseau, J.J. (2004). The Social Contract. London: Penguin