Jean-Jacques Rousseau Versus Thomas Hobbes - Politics Essay Example

Hobbes and Rousseau explored a variety of ways of life in 17th and 18th centuries respectively. Influenced by earlier thinkers and the political events of their times, both scholars held similar views on different topics relating to governance and human nature. However, there were some differing perspectives from the scholars especially in regards to the role of government in the delivery of the needs of society.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

One of the areas that have attracted strong interest in the works of Hobbes and Rousseau is the idea of nature. These scholars tend to answer the question as to whether the state of nature is a historical or fictional condition; whether nature is a reflection of a state of peace or war; whether nature is a condition of individual isolation or an individual state in the presence and interaction of others. Additionally, the scholarship of Hobbes and Rousseau seeks to understand the variation and form of the social contract as well as the variations of the nature of political power that precedes the social contract (Bobbio, 1993). The mentioned aspects of the works of these philosophers seek to attack the positions of classical theorists such Plato and Aristotle that human beings are social by nature.

The theory of Hobbes is based on the notion of individualism which is he considers inseparable from the human nature. In the pre-politics era, Hobbes contends that people were not naturally social. In this condition, individuals are concerned only with the pursuit of self-preservative interests and hold little regard for the interests of others. In the natural conditions, human beings are in a state of endless war, with their lives being poor, solitary, nasty, and brutish (Hobbes, 2004). This competitive nature of human beings makes them violent and harmful to others as they seek to satisfy individual goals and desires. Such interpretation of human nature portrays a cynical view of the human character and negates the aspect of socialization amongst human beings.

Contrary to Hobbes view of human nature, Rousseau recognizes that the condition of human nature in the pre-politic age is largely good. He argued that the nature of human beings as established in terms of age difference, bodily health, and quality of mind or soul, is a good condition and, therefore, cannot promote only the self-preserving interests (Rousseau, 2012. Although Rousseau acknowledges that self-preservation is an important attribute of human beings, he does not accept Hobbes view that all human beings are in pursuit of selfish interests at the expense of others in the society. He contends that the material aspect of human beings coexists with the principle of empathy; the repugnance to see fellow human beings suffer. In his view, human beings are social animals in the state of nature, but development of this state instills reason (Bobbio, 1993).And it is reason is that makes them feel the necessity to relate with each other. As such, circumstances occupy an important position in triggering the application of reason, but human beings often fall captive to the corrupting nature of society and, thus, fail to apply reason in relationships amongst themselves. To this end, Rousseau concludes that the state of war in the human nature exist but does not start at the beginning of human history. Rather, it is shaped by social, environmental and historical factors (Scott, 2014).

The process of socialization is what introduces Rousseaus idea of social construct. Whereas both Hobbes and Rousseau acknowledge that the evolution of human relationships led to the emergence and development of civil society and the state, they differ on the manner in which such relationships should be executed. Hobbes argues that the social construct is a natural evolution mechanism in which individuals agree to be united under a unified political society which represents their aspirations. By so doing, they agree to abide by the rules and obligations related to those rules (Hobbes, 2004).As a political society, individuals can manage to protect themselves from any harm that might come as a result of the chaotic effects of the interests of self-preservation. Similarly, Rousseau posted that the social contract is a means of creating mechanism through general interests of members of a given political society are protected. In his view, he seems to agree with Hobbes that in a society where human beings often pursue self-preservation interests, some form of government was necessary to ensure universal interests are promoted and protected (Scott, 2014).

Another area that has attracted interest between Hobbes and Rousseau is the concept of the social contract. Hobbes (2004) argues that the social contract is anchored on the state of nature of man. Despite the self-seeking nature of human beings, they are rational and, therefore, respond to political authority so long as such authority promotes their own individual interests. This way, they rule as individuals and not as a group. As such, Hobbes encourages the notion that the rationale for the existence of a political authority that promotes individual interests (Bobbio, 1993). Conversely, Rousseau believed that the legitimacy of political authority should be anchored on the interest of the whole group that constitutes a particular civil society. He introduces the concept of general will which encourages the promotion of the well-being of a whole society rather than individual interests. Rousseau observes that the individual interests may conflict with those of the whole political society but contends that the general will legitimizes the role of political authority and, thus, represents the aspiration a particular group of individuals as a collective entity (Scott, 2014).His argument was based on the idea that the general will is not a summation of the wills of individuals since such product represents private interests instead of common good.

Rousseau also ties the concept of general will to sovereignty. Holders of sovereign power are responsible for the discharge of the general will. Since the general will promotes the interest of the whole political society, it encourages diversity and freedom (Scott, 2014). Sovereignty in this sense meant the ability of a given political authority to administer the interest of the general populace. This argument was based on the inequalities that were inherent in Rousseaus society. These disparities, he argued, resulted from the lack of democracy; the sovereign ignored the interests of the general will for selfish interests. In the democratic sense, the public good is compromised because the rulers do not consider the voices of the majority of the citizens as integral contributors to the process of decision-making (Rousseau, 2012). As such, the art of ruling over the proletariat is bestowed on the interests of the holders of political authority.

Rousseau based the concept of democracy on the view that political societies do not come into existence through divine or as a product of the inequalities of commerce but by a formal agreement between the ruled and the rulers. In this respect, political authority must be ratified by the private individuals for it be categorized as representative of the general will of the concerned political society (Scott, 2014).Such assertions about government depict Rousseau as a firm believer in the rule of majority albeit under the supervision of the minority.

On the other hand, Hobbes proposes a social contract in which the minority has extensive control of the interests of the ruled. Unlike Rousseau who considered the social contract as a source of liberty and freedom, Hobbes advocated for an absolute sovereignty. As Hobbes contends, the nature of man cultivates the possibility that any attempts to factor the interests of the public will jeopardize the influence of the power-holders. This threat results from the view that man is naturally selfish and will always strive for self-preservation and this may hurt the interests of the majority and the rulers. Such scenario is likely to instigate chaos that can endanger the existence of the Republic (Hobbes, 2004). Moreover, Hobbes believes that choice does not guarantee freedom. Rather, he describes freedom as the ability to move without any hindrances (Bobbio, 1993). To this end, he (like Machiavelli) proposes an autocratic leadership as a means of containing the destructive nature of human egos.

How the Views of Hobbes and Rousseau Relate to Modern Politics

The ideas of natural law, social construct, and natural rights feature heavily in the contemporary governance practices. The natural law embodies regulations that relate to the minimum conditions for existence (Rousseau, 2012). They relate to what is right or wrong. As Hobbes and Rousseau argue, the egotistic nature of men often violates the ways that nature has prescribed. Specifically, Rousseau attributes the pursuit of self-preservation goals as the source of inequalities in the society (Scott, 2014).Today, inequalities in the United States is a major governance issue. Whereas the government has been documented to have instituted various mechanisms to give opportunities to lower class citizens, evidence suggests that inadequate adherence to the natural law has failed to reconcile the interests of the citizens and that of the whole society (Tritch, 2016). To this extent, this scenario asserts Rousseaus view that it is the process of socialization which brings impurities to the nature of men which, in turn, results in inequalities.

The rising inequalities in the United States can be attributed to politics and government policies. After the 2008/09 recession, the Federal Reserve has consistently adopted a low-interest rates policy to improve the incomes of the lower class citizens. However, Congress has often scuttled these efforts for partisan reasons that have no benefit for the majority of the citizens. This loose policy has encouraged the concentration of wealth on a few, wealthy individuals (Tritch, 2016). As a result, many Americans feel that representatives to various political offices do not represent their interests. Rousseau considers the above situation as immoral since the general will is not the motivation for most of the decisions of the Congress. According to Rousseau, such actions undermine equality as well as erode the legitimacy of the government (Scott, 2014).

Democracy and autocracy are major issues of governance in the modern society. As espoused by Rousseau, democratic principles such as liberty, equality, and participation form an integral part of American democracy and those of many members of the developed world. For instance, the constitution provides that citizens elect leaders at regular intervals. Also, the citizenry can participate in a referendum to decide on issues of public interest (Gilens & Page, 2014). These practices demonstrate that the general will, as proposed by Rousseau, takes precedence in regards to the relationship between the ruled and the rulers. Under such circumstances, Rousseau argues that citizens develop a genuine respect for the law (Scott, 2014).However, issues of crime related inequalities show the extent of the inconveniences in the modern world which hinders the realization of the intentions of the general will as prescribed by Rousseau. On the other hand, Hobbes proposes an autocratic and centralized system of government which allows little participation of the public. In some countries, leaders make most of the decisions without the input of the general public. For instance, citizens are conditioned to obey laws through fear and punishment (Jakonen, 2011).Such sovereign behavior undermines the interests of the majority. Today, even in the United States, agents of the state use force to instill fear i...