The Social Contract summary

Few books open with a more memorable line than The Social Contract.

“Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains.”

Just like that, Rousseau condemned the Europe of his day. The “chains” he refers to are the laws and conventions enforced on people by society, which restrict their freedom.

Now, restrictions on human freedom might be justified if it means people receive some benefit from society in return. But, alas, as is too frequently the case, laws serve mainly just to reinforce the position of the rich and powerful at the expense of everybody else.

So, from the point of view of the average person, living in society might seem like a pretty raw deal. This is the problem Rousseau had in mind when he undertook to write The Social Contract. What he wanted to know was: what exactly gives rulers the right to limit the freedom of their subjects? Or, in other words: when is living in society actually worth it for the people being ruled? 

The key message here is: States are only legitimate when citizens freely consent to live in them.

In his quest to determine what makes political authority legitimate, the first option Rousseau considers is that rulers are simply superior to their subjects by nature. As an analogy, he suggests the relationship between rulers and subjects might be akin to that between parents and children. Parents have legitimate power over their children because they’re more developed and capable. 

Rousseau promptly rejects that rulers are analogous to parents, not just because there have been many hopelessly incapable leaders throughout history. No, he points out that political authorities don’t spring up out of nature spontaneously. They ascend to the top through overt acts of power.

Thus, the second option Rousseau considers is whether rulers are legitimate because they’re the most powerful, and therefore most capable of subduing a population.

Again, Rousseau rejects the idea that power alone can produce legitimacy. Instead, he argues that for a political body to be legitimate, citizens themselves recognize its value and submit to it willingly. But, if people obey rulers only because they’re forced to, they have no choice in the matter, and therefore don’t possess the freedom to submit willingly.

Finally, then, Rousseau concludes that for a state to have legitimacy, the people must submit to it freely. Thus, we arrive at the idea of the social contract. A state is formed legitimately when a number of people band together and agree to cooperate for the sake of their mutual benefit.

Under the social contract, people are willing to accept constraints on their freedom because, in return, they enjoy greater peace, security, and prosperity than they otherwise would alone.