“Man is born free, and is everywhere in chains”
By Mr Jean-Paul LAWRENCE TAMPU-EYA, BA LL.B. LL.M. PhD (Law Res.)
This essay replies the question, which looks at how Rousseau’s assertion “Man is born free, and is everywhere in chains” arose, and how it may be remedied. This situation which states that “Man is born free, and is everywhere in chains” is mentioned in the beginning of Rousseau’s book called Social Contract. However, it is understood that this situation originates from Rousseau’s book called the “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality”. This above assertion can be read either as a recipe for the abolition of human freedom and liberties and the absorption of the individual into a sovereign collective. Or, it can also be a celebration of freedom, liberty and the rights of man, which, in a way, condemns all forms of dictatorship, absolute or despotic and arbitrary government that coerces its citizens through the use of its power.
This situation arose because according to Rousseau, man is good by nature, just as he is free by nature but he is made bad, as he is made unfree by society’s institutions that negate his power. Rousseau says that man in Natural State does not require society in order to be truly free since naturally speaking man was born free. However, although the above situation originates from his “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality”, it seems also right to argue from what Rousseau put in his Social Contract that he appears to ignore how this change of the situation in which a man who was born free and became everywhere in chains came about. One of the reason for this can be because Rousseau is not an historian since, as it is known, man changes through history. That is why Rousseau says that he does not know how the change come about but he thinks that he knows how to make this situation legitimate. This is simply when he argued in Chapter One of Book I of his “Social Contract” that:
“…How this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer…”
However despite all this, there still exist one primitive characteristic of human being, which is what is called the ‘natural man’ who, according to Rousseau, was born free.
Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” falls into two main parts apart from the dedication. In this book, Rousseau discusses the natural man in the preface and the first part; while in the second part, he states the course in which the latter primitive human nature, which is by itself good, has been corrupted and decayed. He argues that it is not the primitive nature of man that make him to be everywhere in chains but it is actually from the society’s corruption that man encounters in the society that he gets all the injustices and bad things of which he is the victim. This is because when Rousseau speaks of the natural man being good, he does not say that man has any positive virtue; rather, what he says is that man is without vices. His predecessors attributed human nature to reason, but Rousseau said that reason itself is not natural to human beings because humans are naturally born free. He argues that, naturally speaking, human being lacks virtue and he does not do wrong things and commit no harm at all. It is therefore arguable that all bad people have only physical existence and no moral existence at all. In Rousseau’s state of nature, the right of the stronger is no right at all and no family had ever existed. Unlike most writers, Rousseau highlights clearly in Emile[1] the distinction that exists between goodness and virtue and between good and virtuous. Rousseau’s philosophy is that primitive men were incapable of virtue, as he asserts in the Discourse On the Origin of Inequality[2] that men in the primitive state do neither have any kind of moral relationship nor know existing duties among themselves. Rousseau’s view of natural man remained unchanged since he kept on arguing that being solitary, the natural man was, on one hand, incapable of virtue since he was without language, i.e. unreflective, incapable of forming general ideas or of comparing himself to other humans. While one the other hand, he says that the natural man was innocent and incapable of cruelty, envy, or deceit, which are the three vices that Rousseau hated most. In the same line of argument, Rousseau attacks Grotius in Part I of the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality by denying that man is naturally sociable. This is because natural man had only two practicable principles, which are called in Rousseau’s words ‘operations of the human soul’ and ‘sentiments’, viz. self-love and pity. According to Rousseau, there was no law, state or inequalities during all this time.
Rousseau outlines the two main characteristics that differentiate human beings to other animals by saying, firstly, that human beings have the freedom of the will because they are not determined by instinct as it is the case with other animals. This is because human beings can oppose or deny nature, as for example they can choose or reject anything they do not want or anything that is different to their will. Lastly, Rousseau argues what can be called humans’ perfectivity, which means simply that man is the only creature amongst others who can improve things he found in the planet. There is no end to what a human being can do since everything he wants to do is achievable. Nevertheless, it is said that natural man was indulgent and lazy, but how did he become social and, as a result to be everywhere in chains? To this question, Rousseau answers that it is because of historical catastrophy and other problems that happened to nature. In order to fight this catastrophy, men got together and developed their own speeches and needs. In addition, man’s conscious brought some morality but he was still free since he could withdraw from anything, which he considers to be in his disadvantage. After that, human being came to start practising venture; and, from this, as it is know, in absence of the law everyone is a judge in his own court. This brought a lot of tension, which at the end resulted in the sacrifice of man’s pity and the birth of the notion of private property. As it is known, in this notion of private property there are statements such as “this land...property... is mine... or this, that...belongs to me” and this brought an increase of prudence amongst men who were not thinking as they used to think previously in the natural state. Rousseau argues that the foundation of the private property is really the source of all the injustices and quarrels that man is the victim of and, which makes him to be everywhere in chains. Rousseau argues that since there was no court, judge or institutions to arbiter when this kind of conflicts between men arose, human being became dependent on others; and, as a consequence, he became enslaved.
John C. Hall[3] explains briefly and clearly the situation, which states how the natural man, who was innocent, became corrupted through the society’s use of private property and bad laws and institutions. This is confirmed when he states that:
“…It is this corruption, and not to the original nature of man, that we owe the injustices of society and wickedness of individual men…”[4]
In other words, it can be said that Rousseau started his Social Contract by saying that “Man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains” because by nature man is good, just as he is free by nature. He says that by nature, man is solitary, governed, motivated by self-interests, and pitiful toward other humans who are suffering. The capacity of self-improvement and the free will make distinguish the man to other animals; and, all this infers man’s capacity to progress from the mere innocence to virtue. Rousseau views also that freedom is an essential part of man’s happiness and that it can never be in man’s interest to loose his freedom. It is also said that virtue is a necessary condition of happiness, while vice is a sufficient unhappiness. In Rousseau’s point of view, virtue arises from man’s exercise of his own capacity for self-improvement; and since a master cannot impose this, it appears right to presuppose freedom. As slavery depraves man, not merely inhibiting the acquisition of virtue but also by destroying man’s natural innocence, it is therefore right to assert that human happiness can only be achieved through man’s freedom.
In Book V of Emile, Rousseau asserts what is called the ‘moral freedom’ theory, which implies that a man is only free when he is the master of himself but not when he is the slave of his passions. This is when he states that:
“... man only is truly free who is master of himself and not the slave of his own passions. In this sense only the virtuous man is free; only he is free to achieve what his rational, as opposed to his impulsive, self wants”.[5]
This situation is also explained when he adds in chapter one of Book I an argument stating that man:
“… Thinks himself to be the masters of others, and still remains a greater slave than they.”
Rousseau says in Social Contract that man is made bad, as he is coerced by institutions that negate his power; and because of this situation, he is made unfree since all regimes coerce humans. He justifies this by stating for example that slavery is the opposite of freedom since in it there is an obligation to do what someone else wants rather than what one wants to do for himself. Slavery is said to be wrong, bad and destructive of the happiness of those who are subject to it; and he explains that slavery simply means, not subject to your own passion but to another human being’s will. ‘Man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains’ constitutes the keynote in the Social Contract; and it seems that the chains referred to in this sentence are social.
While comparing the problem of the squaring circle with that of the rule of law, Rousseau said that the law has the role not only of providing freedom but also to curtail it. In this point, he held that for every freedom and liberty that the law has to provide, it has also a role to curtail them. John Locke’s views of social contract and the idea of a natural right were all rejected in Rousseau’s philosophical theories. It is said that the society’s condition is one in which all and every single right is alienated to the sovereign. For John Locke, a positive law system set up by a constitutional system can really enlarge men’s freedom; but he also thinks that many positive law systems do diminish men’s freedom. He agrees in this sense that there are some laws that are good, i.e. the laws that defend men’s natural rights, and some others that are very bad, i.e. the laws that abuse and neglect men’s natural rights. However, Rousseau rejects the idea that there are ‘natural rights’ and it is the responsibilities of rules to preserve. This is since Rousseau looks at the word law, as something just, but when he thinks about the sort of law he comes across in this world we are living in, he seems to see that all of the laws are unjust; and therefore it is these unjust laws that keep on making the man who was born free to be everywhere in chains. Rousseau rejects the idea that there are original ‘natural rights’ and that it is the responsibility of rulers to preserve. About these unjust laws in the world, Rousseau put, for example, in Book IV of Emile that:
“The universal spirit of laws in all countries is to favour the stronger against the weaker, and those who have against those who have nothing: this disadvantage is inevitable and without exception."[6]
As it is said above, Rousseau argues that modern states not only deny human beings the liberty and freedom that they used to have in their natural state but it is characterised as a commerce. He argues that this commerce is now transformed by commercial states where there is a difference between the rich, who are very few, and the poor, who are many, in the society; and, therefore, it brings Rousseau to realise that the rich are more protected while the poor are oppressed. He says also that all modern political systems are on the preservation of this situation.
Concerning the remedy to the situation, which states that “man is born free and he is everywhere in chains”, Rousseau thought that it might be redressed with the use of the General Will[7] in the social contract. As it is known, Rousseau has solved this situation, which in other words is a problem between individual man and the state, in his book called the “Social Contract”. The Social contract in Rousseau’s thought has to be between each member of the society, or each individual, and the ‘whole’ for the sake of the common good of everyone in the society. It is suggested that peace maintained by mutual pact, or social contract, can be the remedy to this situation since man’s natural pity has already disappeared and that the natural state does not exist anymore. It is even argued that it is hard, or even impossible, for human beings who are living in the modern and contemporary time to return again to the previous existing state of nature. It is argued that since there is equality and, also, that no one deserves more rights than others in the social contract, the application of the social contract with its principle of the General Will is a good solution to man’s corruption and injustices that make him to be everywhere in chains. With this, it can be argued that there would be no source of conflict between the state and the individual. There would be a formation of an artificial personality between each person giving himself to society while, at the same time, retaining his freedom as before.
The General Will in the social contract is the solution to the above situation since it is sovereign and it is the foundation of any association, which has personality and a corporate identity; and this association is called ‘the state’, when it is in passive, and ‘the sovereign’ when it is in active. This association has a will like any other person; and Rousseau calls such a will the ‘General Will’, which is a will by the whole which is as well law. The General Will is the sole source of good law, which can justly govern everyone in the society. This is because Rousseau sees law, as an expression of the General Will, which has to be just since the General Will is something righteous. Rousseau argues that the General Will has to be general and it is totally different from the ‘will of all’ since, with the use of the General Will, each individual belonging to the society must participate in legislation because the law has to apply to all and every members of the society equally. Humans’ capacity to the General Will is what constitutes their freedom. Norman P. Barry[8] explains that, according to Rousseau, the General Will is the true freedom since it is an obedience to the moral law that people impose upon themselves. This is because people are free when they promote the interests which they share together with others but this is not when they just try to maximise their own selfish interests. This argument does not depend upon naive altruism, but it is rather upon good institutions being so designed that people would have a way of imposing law on themselves in order to advance common interests. The General Will, which is from ‘all for the whole’ is said to determine the nature of the society; and, in formal limitation, it is itself said to be moral. Rousseau says that originally human beings were natural based but now they are moral based as they consider their actions according to moral principles.
In other words, Rousseau proposed, as a solution to the above situation, that society should be governed by the General Will since it legitimates the government and it is the most important thing for any government’s legitimacy at any time. This is for example when Rousseau[9] argues that:
“The first and most important rule of legitimate or popular government... government whose object is the good of the people...is to follow in everything the General Will...”
With the use of the General Will, as it is mentioned above, Rousseau asserted that each individual citizen of the society needs to have sense within him; and, as a participant and a contributor to it, he prescribes rules, which in turn as a private individual himself, he has to obey. With the General Will, man gives himself in the hands of the society and Rousseau argues that obeying the General Will is:
‘obeying ourselves and being as free as before’.
From this argument, it looks clearly that obeying the General Will is Rousseau’s response to the above situation, which states that “man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains”. Rousseau argues that any human being who gives up his freedom in order to be ruled by the rules of others instead of the General Will becomes dependent on others; and, in such circomstances, Rousseau asserts that the man is to be forced to be free. That is to say that any man whose will is in conflict with the General Will is in conflict with himself. Consequently, such a man lives in contradiction; and, especially if he is not made to bend by accepting the General Will, his own liberty and freedom will be negated at the end. That is why it is said that such a man, who does not respect the General Will, is in chains and he has to be ‘forced to be free’. Rousseau held this argument in one of his famous claims, which stated that:
“…Whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole society, which means nothing more or less than that he will be forced to be free; for this is the condition which, by giving each citizens to his country, secures him against all personal dependance…”[10]
Rousseau argues as well that since human being has a passion, there is a need for a legitimate government and he says that this government needs to be republican because it is the only form of legitimate government. This is when he puts:
“Every legitimate government is republican...”[11] and again “...I understand by this word [republican], not merely an aristocracy or a democracy, but generally any government directed by the general will, which is the law. To be legitimate the government must be, not one with the Sovereign but with its minister. In such a case monarchy is a republic.”[12]
It seems that Rousseau was aware of the fact that there could be a tension between society’s stability and the fact that the General Will can always consider the way society is run. In order to eliminate this tension that can be created, Rousseau proposes that any individual can propose any law but it should be noticed that whoever proposes the law will also be responsible for the outcome. It is also argued that a proper moral education is needed since it is very important in order to change the corrupt institutions and lives of human beings. People would do better to do the study of nature which will bring them to the conclusion that the standard of everything either positive or negative that exist today are only man made. Rousseau argued that even the idea of civil society and its foundation are not at all natural since they are only the product of history, as what they require is morality which is not in itself natural.
It can be noted that there are two schools of thoughts about Rousseau’s political philosophy. J. Chapman[13] argues that in these two schools of thoughts, the first school looks at Rousseau as a liberal; while the second one thinks that his political philosophy may lead a state in totalitarianism. However, this essay concentrates only on the former school, i.e. the school that puts Rousseau as a liberal because that is where the solution to the above situation, which states that ‘Man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains’ can be found and answered. This school that says that Rousseau is a liberal seems to argue that through the application of Rousseau’s liberal philosophy of the General Will in Social Contract, men can have their primitive natural rights and freedom restored. Therefore, it can be said that with the use of the Genaral Will, citizens can get back their freedom as if they were in their primitive natural state again. It is argued that those who just do a first or an incomplete readings of The Social Contract often are the ones who seem to produce the impression that Rousseau is simply advocating direct democracy but what he really want is a rule through the General Will. Rousseau emphasis that the government has to rule through General Will, which is the popular consent. According to Rousseau, this is one of the remedies, which with its application would avoid the situation of the man who was born free to be everywhere in chains.
It is argued firstly that Rousseau advocates the General Will, which results in citizens’ freedom through regular elections in order to avoid arbitrary government. The people here are seen as sovereign since they can decide their own form of government because it is all of them together who form the General Will. However Rousseau favoured elective aristocracy to be the good form or kind of government because it requires less virtues but he mentioned clearly that the representatives who are elected are only ambassadors because they will be representing only the general will of the citizen as a whole. Rousseau argued, for example, in favour of election in chapter four on “Slavery”, Book I, “Social Contract”, that:
“…Hence, an arbitrary government would be legitimate only if every new generation were free to accept or reject it, and in that case the government would cease to be arbitrary.”[14]
While acknowledging that the people’s consent can in some cases be tacit, Rousseau says that the General Will is the only means, through which the government commands can pass:
“…so long as the Sovereign, being free to oppose them, offers no opposition. In such a case, universal silence is taken to imply the consent f the people.”
While thinking of a solution based on the use of the General Will, Rousseau abandons the idea of democracy which according to him is suited for angels. For instance, he criticised the idea of direct democracy since he saw that the philosophy of society being ruled by the General Will is the real alternative in order to end man’s situation of being everywhere in chains. The reason for this argument appears to be because there are paradoxes that exist with the use of direct democracy, which is said to be an extreme form of non-representative democracy. This means particularly that in surrendering to direct democracy, a simple citizen choose to be overridden by the rest of the people especially if what he chose is totally different from the rest of the majority’s choice. Rousseau explains this situation in the “Paradox of democracy” when he states that the citizen, in this event surrenders part of his freedom to the majority of the community; and this act of surrender has a form of “Social Contract”. Nevertheless, Rousseau is against direct democracy because he favours a rule by the General Will, which in his view constitutes the sole solution to end the situation of man, who was born free, being everywhere in chains. Rousseau does not believe in democracy since, according to him, it is against the natural order that the majority should govern the minority; and, he asserts that no democracy has existed before and none would even exist in the future as well. In his own words, he put:
“… there has never been a true democracy, and there will never be. It is contrary to the natural order that the greater number should govern and the smaller to be governed. One can imagine hardly that all the people would sit permanently in an assembly to deal with public affairs; and one can easily see they could not appoint commissions for that purpose without the form of administration changing.”[15]
While still favouring his doctrine of a rule by the General Will, Rousseau argues that the exercise of the political power can only become legitimate if people give their own consent and this can only be done with the use of the General Will. He went even further when he states that democracy or real democratic government is not for human beings but it is for angels[16]. This argument is for example affirmed when he states that:
“…If there were nation of Gods, it would govern itself democratically. A government so perfect is not suited to men.”[17]
It is also argued by this school of thoughts that Rousseau advocated the rule of law than the rule of man, i.e. he wanted the society or simply the state to be governed by law rather than by man. Rousseau said that this could be done with the use of the constitution based on the General Will, which is said to be itself the law, but without the separation of power. Rousseau’s view is that there should not be a separation of power because, according to him, sovereignty is indivisible. Although he held that the sovereign and the government have to be separated, it seems that this does not means that there should be a separation of power with checks and balances. This is for example when he alleges that:
“…It seems then impossible to have a better constitution than that in which the executive and legislative powers are united; but this very fact renders the government in certain respects inadequate, because things which should be distinguished are confounded, and the prince and the Sovereign, being the same person, form, so to speak, no more than a government without a government. It is not good for him who makes the laws to execute them, or for the body of the people to turn their attention away from the general standpoint and devote it to particular objects…”[18]
Before concluding, it seems right to observe that Rousseau is one of the rarest first political thinkers who thinks of society but not the state. He argues that the form of government determine the consequences of the society itself. Although Rousseau says that there is a need for the existence of a Prince or a government since human beings need direction in their lives, he argues that the less government interference the better for humans’ freedom. It is also said that government needs to be powerful in order to overcome people’s particular will in the interest of the General Will. This is because government’s role can be diminished if people’s particular will, rather than the General Will, increases. Rousseau said also that smaller states are better governed since people are freer than larger or bigger states. Since Rousseau was himself a citizen of Geneva and he knew almost everyone there, he says that there is a sense of community in small states and almost everyone knows everybody.
In conclusion, it seems right to say that according to Rousseau, the situation, which stated that ‘Man is born free and he is everywhere in chains’, arose from Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. In that book, Rousseau says that it is not the original nature of man that make him to be everywhere in chains but it is actually from the corruption he finds in this world that he gets all the injustices of society. All these bad things or wickedness of the individual men make the man bad, since he is coerced by institutions that negate his power; and, as a result of this situation, he is made unfree. It is argued clearly that this above situation arose simply from the foundation of the private property, which brought more conflicts among men. It is argued that this foundation of private is the corner stone to the above situation since it is at the heart of all the injustices and quarrel that man is the victim of and, which makes him to be everywhere in chains. Moreover, since during that time in the state of nature, there was no court, judge or institutions to arbiter when the conflict arose, human being became dependent on others and because of this he became enslaved.
Rousseau advocates that this situation can only be remedied with the use of the General Will in the Social Contract, as it is stated above. He says also that it is very important the everyone respects and obeys the General Will because it is only through its use that the remedy to the above situation can be found. The use of the General Will constitutes a remedy to this situation because Rousseau argues that obeying the General Will is ‘obeying ourselves and being as free as before.’ He also insists that the General Will is the sole source of all the law for the people that can legitimate the governemt; and, form this, it can be said that the rule of law should prevail. Rousseau says also that, with the use of the General Will, the people have the right to choose their own form of government in regular elections. Although it is said to be important to separate the sovereign and the government, Rousseau opposes the idea of the separation of power.
Bibliography
Berman, M., The Politics of Authenticity
Rousseau, J.J., The Social Contract and Discourses
Cranston, Maurice (1968) Jean-Jacques Rousseau: The Social Contract
Hall, John C. (1973) Rousseau: An Introduction to His Political Philosophy
Cole, G.D.H. et al. (1973) Jean-Jacques Rousseau: The Social Contract and Discourses
Cassirer, E. The Question of Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Chapman, J. Rousseau – Totalitarian or Liberal?
Cobban, A. Rousseau and the Modern State
Mairet, Gerard (1974) Rousseau: Du Contract ou Principes du Droit Politique (Marabout Universitaire).
Horowitz, A. Rousseau, Nature, and History
Shklar, J. Men and Citizens, A Study of Rousseau’s Social Theory
Wokler, R. The Social Thought of Jean-Jacques Rousseau
This work (essay/article) was written by:
Mr Jean-Paul LAWRENCE TAMPU-EYA, PhD (Res.),
BA(Hon's), LL.B.(Hon's), LL.M. (London)
Chairman, CARA SOCIETY,
Central Africa's Rights & AIDS (CARA) Society
CARA - Charity Reg. No. 1135610 - Company Reg. No. 06673504 - HMRC No.: XT12788 - ICO No.: Z154587X
Registered Office Address: 18 - 22 Ashwin Street, Dalston, Hackney, London E8 3DL United Kingdom (UK)
Tel: +44 (0) 844 478 0015 - Mob: +44 (0) 795 695 2645 - Fax: +44 (0) 872 115 8436 - E-mail: info@cara-online.org - Website: www.cara-online.org
Copyright © July 2008
Designed and typeset by
Plefilia, Plenty, Plevinas and Plemilia Tampwhuo-Eyab & Co.
41, Tower Court, London E5 (UK)
[1] Rousseau, Emile. See especially Book V, p. 817, where Rousseau state that the virtuous man, as opposed to the man who is ‘only good’, is explained to mean ‘the one who knows how to conquer his emotions.’
[2] See p. 128 M, 180 Co.
[3] John C. Hall, “Rousseau: An Introduction to His Political Philosophy”, 1973, at p.21.
[4]J. C. Hall, page 21.
[5] Ibid., p. 69-70.
[6] J. Rousseau, Emile, Classiques Garnier, Paris, 1924, p. 270. See footnotes.
[7] Rousseau’s General Will is what is willed by a society as a whole. It is a common will for a common interest, and as such it is said to be different from or opposed to the particular interests of particular individuals. Rousseau says that when there is a conflict, an individual would have an obligation to obey the General Will because it and not the inclination to promote his own personal well being is strictly speaking his own real will. He says that the General Will is always right and it is the common will to all the people. Please see further.
[8] Norman P. Barry, “An Introduction to Modern Political Theory”, 3rd Edition, The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1995, at 217-8.
[9] G.D.H.Cole, as above, p. 135.
[10] Social Contract, Ibid.
[11] G. D. H. Cole, “Jean-Jacques Rousseau: The Social Contract and Discourses”, p. 193, 1973.
[12] Ibid., See footnotes.
[13] J. Chapman, “Rousseau – Totalitarian or Liberal”
[14] Maurice Cranston, “Rousseau: The Social Contract”, Penguin Classics, page 53-58, 1968.
[15] See Rousseau, Social Contract, ch. 4 on “Democracy”.
[16] As it is already asserted above. Rousseau opposed democracy or a representative government.
[17] M. Cranston, page 114, as it is stated above.
[18] M. Cranston, page 112-14, as it is stated above. See Rousseau, Social Contract, ch. 4, Book III.
