This formula shows us that the act of association comprises a mutual undertaking between the public and the individuals, and that each individual, in making a contract, as we may say, with himself, is bound in a double capacity; as a member of the he is bound to the individuals, and as a…
Read full original text in reading mode
Public-domain original
CHAPTER VII
THE SOVEREIGN
This formula shows us that the act of association comprises a mutual
undertaking between the public and the individuals, and that each
individual, in making a contract, as we may say, with himself, is bound
in a double capacity; as a member of the he is bound to the
individuals, and as a member of the State to the Sovereign. But the
maxim of civil right, that no one is bound by undertakings made to
himself, does not apply in this case; for there is a great difference
between incurring an obligation to yourself and incurring one to a
whole of which you form a part.
Attention must further be called to the fact that public deliberation,
while competent to bind all the subjects to the Sovereign, because of
the two different capacities in which each of them may be regarded,
cannot, for the opposite reason, bind the Sovereign to itself; and
that it is consequently against the nature of the for the
Sovereign to impose on itself a law which it cannot infringe. Being
able to regard itself in only one capacity, it is in the position of an
individual who makes a contract with himself; and this makes it clear
that there neither is nor can be any kind of fundamental law binding
on the body of the people--not even the social contract itself. This
does not mean that the body politic cannot enter into undertakings with
others, provided the contract is not infringed by them; for in relation
to what is external to it, it becomes a simple being, an individual.
But the body politic or the Sovereign, drawing its being wholly from
the sanctity of the contract, can never bind itself, even to an
outsider, to do anything derogatory to the original act, for instance,
to alienate any part of itself, or to submit to another Sovereign.
Violation of the act by which it exists would be self-annihilation; and
that which is itself nothing can create nothing.
As soon as this multitude is so united in one body, it is impossible to
offend against one of the members without attacking the body, and still
more to offend against the body without the members resenting it. Duty
and interest therefore equally oblige the two contracting parties to
give each other help; and the same men should seek to combine, in their
double capacity, all the advantages dependent upon that capacity.
Again, the Sovereign, being formed wholly of the individuals who
compose it, neither has nor can have any interest contrary to theirs;
and consequently the sovereign power need give no guarantee to its
subjects, because it is impossible for the body to wish to hurt all
its members. We shall also see later on that It cannot hurt any in
particular. The Sovereign, merely by virtue of what it is, is is always
what it should be.
This, however, is not the case with the relation of the subjects to the
Sovereign, which, despite the common interest, would have no security
that they would fulfil their undertakings, unless it found means to
assure itself of their fidelity.
In fact, each individual, as a man, may have a particular will
contrary or dissimilar to the general will which he has as a citizen.
His particular interest may speak to him quite differently from the
common interest: his absolute and naturally independent existence may
make him look upon what he owes to the common cause as a gratuitous
contribution, the loss of which will do less harm to others than the
payment of it is burdensome to himself; and, regarding the moral person
which constitutes the State as a persona ficta, because not a man, he
may wish to enjoy the rights of citizenship without being ready to
fulfil the duties of a subject. The continuance of such an injustice
could not but prove the undoing of the body politic.
In order then that the social compact may not be an empty formula, it
tacitly includes the undertaking, which alone can give force to the
rest, that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled
to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will
be forced to be free; for this is the condition which, by giving each
citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence. In
this lies the key to the working of the political machine; this alone
legitimizes civil undertakings, which, without it, would be absurd,
tyrannical, and liable to the most frightful abuses.
Public-domain original text shown for study context. Underlined terms can be tapped for simple reader notes.
Simple English explanation
Rousseau explains the Sovereign as the people acting collectively. Each citizen has a double role: member of the sovereign body and subject under law. In simple terms, Rousseau is explaining how a free people can create public rules without turning political power into private domination.
1-minute summary
Rousseau explains the Sovereign as the people acting collectively. Each citizen has a double role: member of the sovereign body and subject under law.
Key takeaways
Political authority needs legitimacy, not only power.
Freedom depends on laws people can recognize as public, not private, will.
The common good is Rousseau’s test for political order.
Government is dangerous when it starts serving itself instead of the people.
Modern example
A modern constitution tries to solve the same problem: it must give officials enough power to govern while keeping that power answerable to the public good.
For kids
Rousseau is asking how people can make fair rules together without letting one person boss everyone around.