"The Social Contract", describes the relationship of man with society. Rousseau claimed that the state of nature is a wild condition without law or morality, and that there are good men only as a result of society's presence. In the state of nature, man is prone to be in frequent competition with his fellow men. However, because he can be more successful facing threats by uniting with other men, he forms a collective human presence known as "society". "The Social Contract", is the "pact" agreed to among men that sets the conditions for membership in society (Cranston & Rousseau, 1968).
One of Rousseau's ideas which inspired revolutionaries was that, to be legitimate, the authority the state has over the people must come from the people themselves, and not from a single person such as the king. He also claimed that the goal of the government should be to secure freedom, equality and justice for all within the state regardless of the will of the individuals within it (The Open University, 2005).
Rousseau’s writings share many of the same principles as modern democracy, in that he emphasised the individual rights of the people to elect/establish a government that was able to act as a proxy to exercise those collective rights but not at the cost of individual will. The state should put the good of all first, rather than the individual who looks after himself only.
Rousseau emphasizes the natural law of personal rights and argues that government derives power legitimately only from the collective choice of many individuals to allow it to act as a stand-in to exercise those personal rights on their behalf. According to Rousseau, legitimate governmental authority can only come from the voluntary will of many people, and those forms of governmental authority that derive their power elsewhere are fundamentally illegitimate - i.e. the monarchy (Cranston & Rousseau, 1968). Rousseau acknowledges that allowing the collective will to establish rules that govern individual conduct might be a form of relinquishment of individual rights. He takes the position that this apparent contradiction is resolved by the fact that it is in the interest of every individual to give the power of social policy and rule enforcement to the government, because without some form of collective power, the individual cannot enforce any legitimate social concerns at all.
Rousseau's attempted to envisage a form of government that best affirms the individual freedom of all its members, with certain constraints intrinsic to a complex, modern, civil society. Rousseau strongly believed in the existence of certain principles of government that could afford the members of society a level of freedom that at least approximates the freedom enjoyed in the state of nature (Cranston & Rousseau, 1968).
"The Lictors Returning to Brutus the Bodies of his Sons", is a painting by the French artist Jacques-Louis David in 1789. Having led the fight which overthrew the monarchy and established the Roman Republic, Brutus tragically saw his sons participate in a plot to restore the monarchy. As a judge, he was called upon to render the verdict, and without hesitation condemned his two sons to death. As a judge, he was called upon to give the verdict, and although they were his own flesh and blood, he did not shrink from the unpleasant task of condemning his own children to death, an indication of his commitment to both the state created law and the philosophy behind it. David's "Brutus" can be seen as a representation of a kind of political heroism in which the best interests of society are put before those of the individual. His painting also appeared at a time when a general dissatisfaction with autocratic rule was to turn into popular support for alternative models of government. Whilst not part of the scope of this particular essay, it could well be argued that this painting was also a useful piece of propaganda for the times.
Rousseau’s philosophy reflects the same ideology as David’s painting, The Lictors returning to Brutus the Bodies of his Sons. Historically, Brutus ordered the death of his sons, as they were found to be part of an organisation that was trying to restore the monarchy to Rome. Their death was ordered in order to maintain the Republic. This is an example of Brutus acting for the good of society rather than acting out what could have been of his own selfish motivations – that of preserving the lives of his offspring. Brutus was seen to be defending the rights of the republic at a great personal cost. In this vein, David’s work is in agreement with Rousseau’s philosophy in that the good of the state should be held above the good of the individual.
Although it was painted before the revolution in France (in 1785), the Oath of the Horatii became one of the defining images of this time. In the painting, the three brothers express their loyalty to the republic of Rome before battle by taking an oath. These are men willing to lay down their lives out of patriotic duty, and are putting the will of the republic ahead of their own. The women in the painting appear to be weeping and in mourning – perhaps they are wives or relatives of the three men that are about to go to war on behalf of the republic. The women do not appear to be begging their men to stay, nor objecting to them taking the oath, and could therefore be seen as also making great personal sacrifice for the good of the state. This reflects Rousseau’s philosophy that the individual makes a reasoned choice to be a part of society and live within the constraints prescribed by such, and to choose to make personal sacrifice in order to maintain the “free” society in which one lives is a demonstration and exercise of that free will that is described by Rousseau.
During the revolution many people found they could relate to Rousseau's writings and philosophical ideas. They related to the paintings of Jacques-Louis David in the same way. Both these influential people helped to voice, and ignite a passion amongst the French general public and to fuel change in the French political system. Looking at Rousseau's idea for government may seem unacceptable if not impossible to us, however, philosophy and ideology, which was prominent in the revolution, that control resides with the people - that "man is born free". Both Rousseau and democracy preserve the idea that government is legitimate only if it emerges from the people within the state (Cranston & Rousseau, 1968).
Just as Rousseau used his publications to reflect on his ideas, David used his art as the media to reflect the ideas and values of the society in eighteenth century France. David’s paintings can be seen as expressions of the desire for social, as well as aesthetic change.
Both philosopher and artist support the notion of an elected state as having more importance than the individual. They both reflect the dissatisfaction of a country long “oppressed” by an aristocracy that was individually focused (on The King) at the time. Both sought freedom, and both expressed that desire using differing methods. The efficacy of David in using his art to convey this message is irrefutable, in the light of the monarchy requiring all art to be censored before being displayed. It is without doubt that Rousseau was also persecuted for his publications. These are two individuals that used their skill and talents to propagate change and “educate” a dissatisfied populace, propelling an entire country toward revolution and democracy.
Bibliography
Cranston, M., & Rousseau, J.-J. (1968). The Social Contract. London: Penguin Books.
The Open University. (2005). An Introduction to the Humanities - Block 3 - History, Classicism and Revolution. Milton Keynes: The Open University UK.
The Open University. (2005). An Introduction to the Humanities - Resource Book 2. Milton Keynes: The Open University UK.
