Social contract theory has a long history in moral and political philosophy, with roots going back to ancient thinkers like Plato and Aristotle. The modern version of social contract theory emerged in the 16th and 17th centuries in the writings of philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. At its core, social contract theory holds that legitimate political authority and obligation derive from an implicit contract or agreement between rulers and the ruled.
Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau on Political Theory: an Overview
Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau on the Social Contract
Thomas Hobbes
Hobbes believed the state of nature without government would lead to a "war of all against all" driven by human self-interest and competition.
To establish peace and order, individuals must surrender some rights and freedoms to an absolute sovereign or Leviathan through a social contract.
Hobbes saw the social contract as an authorization of absolute state power in exchange for security. Citizens cannot revoke this contract.
He viewed individual rights as nonexistent without the state. Rights are granted conditionally by the sovereign to fulfill the social contract.
Hobbes advocated for a strong, undivided central authority to impose order, seeing this as the only way to overcome chaotic human nature.
John Locke
Locke saw the state of nature as reasonable with inherent natural rights to life, liberty and property that preexist government.
Individuals consent to the social contract to better preserve these natural rights by having an impartial government and common laws.
Locke's social contract establishes limited government by consent of the governed and retains individual rights like revolution against tyranny.
He argued for separation of powers and constraints on government authority to prevent abuse.
Locke maintained that the social contract exists only to serve people's interests. It can be dissolved if the government violates their trust.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Rousseau believed humans are inherently good in the state of nature but corrupted by the constraints of civilization.
His social contract seeks to regain freedom and ensure equality through an enlightened "general will" that reflects the shared interests of the people.
The general will, created through direct democracy, aims at the common good rather than individual desires. Citizens must actively participate.
Rousseau saw the social contract as between the individual and the collective rather than with a ruler. Individual rights are subordinate to the general will.
He criticized traditional institutions like religion and private property as promoting inequality and undermining the general will.
Hegel, Marx and Habermas on the Formation of the State and the Social Contract.
Hegel
Hegel saw the dialectical development of self-consciousness as driving history’s progression toward ever-increasing freedom.
For Hegel, the state represents the highest embodiment of ethics and reason. Individual interests realize themselves through duty to the state.
He conceived the state as an organic, living entity rather than an artificial construct. The state transcends individual wills.
Hegel justified constitutional monarchy as allowing the state to mediate between individual interests and the universal interest.
His political ideal was a constitutional monarchy supporting a large, interventionist state and strong bureaucracy.
Hegel emphasized that citizens achieve true freedom only by obeying the ethical order of the state. Freedom is found in duty.
Marx
Marx critiqued capitalism as an exploitative system defined by class conflict between capitalists and workers.
He presented a materialist view of history as driven by dialectical changes in the mode of economic production.
Marx theorized that capitalism’s contradictions would inevitably lead the proletariat to unite and revolt against their oppression.
He advocated abolishing private property and transitioning to a socialist society without class distinctions as steps toward communism.
In communist society, the state “withers away” as collective ownership replaces class antagonisms. People reach true freedom.
Marx saw revolution as necessary to overturn capitalism, predicting its inevitable collapse due to internal tensions and crises.
Habermas
Habermas reformulated critical theory by emphasizing communicative rationality, discourse ethics, and deliberative democracy.
He focused on conditions and practices required for undistorted communication, argumentation, and consensus formation.
Habermas maintained that valid norms and laws could only arise through inclusive, non-coercive rational discourse among free and equal citizens.
He saw deliberative democracy as allowing pluralistic participation, debate, and reaching understanding across difference.
Habermas argued that the deliberative process confers legitimacy on outcomes instead of pre-existing transcendental truths.
His political ideal involves grounding law in intersubjective argumentation by the democratic public sphere.
How do these Philosophers view the Social Contract?
Hegel:
Hegel criticized the social contract tradition as an overly abstract conceptualization of the state.
He saw the state as an organic entity that evolves over history rather than an artificial construct created by contract.
However, Hegel viewed the state as embodying and transcending individual wills. In this sense, there is an implied "contract" between state and citizens.
The Hegelian state represents the universal interest through ethical life and actualization of freedom. Citizens find their particular interests realized through duty to the state.
Marx:
Marx strongly critiqued social contract theory as ignoring actual class interests and economic relations in society.
He viewed the supposed "social contract" as masking the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie owners of capital.
Marx dismissed the state under capitalism as an instrument of class oppression, not an embodiment of universal will.
He saw revolution and overthrowing the capitalist state as necessary, not reforming an implicit contract.
Habermas:
Habermas moved away from social contract language, though retained some implicit contractarian elements.
His discourse ethics theory relies on rational agreement among citizens achieved through inclusive communicative action.
This consensus can be seen as a notional contract, conferring legitimacy on norms and laws.
However, Habermas grounded his theory in discourse and deliberation itself rather than pre-existing rights or contracts.
So in summary, all three thinkers substantially differed from traditional social contract theory, even while retaining some implicit agreements between state and citizens.
In contemporary political philosophy, there has been a revival of interest in social contract theory. Contemporary theorists seek to update and modify traditional social contract ideas to address moral and political issues in modern, complex societies. Three key areas of focus for contemporary contractarians are: (1) justice and inequality, (2) democracy and participation, and (3) community and social cooperation.