Rousseau’s defense of democracy

[Tense music] Hi, I'm Geoff Pynn. I teach Philosophy at Elgin Community College. In this video, I'm going to talk about Rousseau's Defense of Democracy. Plato argued that democracy leads to disaster. He thought an elite class of guardians should rule, instead. Their natural abilities, extensive training and austere living conditions would guarantee that they would rule in the best interest of society as a whole. But Plato’s proposal leaves the rest of us with no say over the conditions of our own lives. We're forced to defer to the judgments of our superiors and accept the rules they give us, whatever we think of them. For most modern thinkers, this is a fatal flaw. We think that individual freedom is essential to a good society and that part of the state’s role is to safeguard our liberties. But how, then, can the state legitimately tell us what to do? This is a difficult problem to resolve. No one has stated the problem more dramatically than the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. “Man is born free,” he wrote, “but everywhere is in chains.” How, Rousseau asks, can the constraints imposed by the state be justified, when people have a right to be free? Rousseau argued that only in a truly democratic society could free people be legitimately ruled. Democracy, for Rousseau, holds the key to justifying state authority. Central to Rousseau’s theory is what he called the general will. When you pursue your own interest, say, by driving your car to work in order to get there on time, you’re acting in accordance with your particular will. You can also step outside yourself and consider what’s in everybody’s interest. From this outside perspective, you might conclude that it would be best to conserve fuel and take the bus to work instead. In Rousseau’s terms, this means that taking the bus is the general will. The general will is not merely the sum of everybody’s particular wills. Maybe everybody prefers to drive to work. If it would be bad for all of us by increasing traffic and pollution, then it’s still not the general will. The general will is what’s truly best for everyone given that we live in society. If it’s best for everyone in society to take the bus to work, then that’s the general will, even if most people would prefer to drive instead. The purpose of the state is to advance the general will. But how can we know what that means? Rousseau argued that the best way to discover what’s in everybody’s interest is to ask everyone. He thought that we discover the general will by discussing it among ourselves, and then taking a vote on what each of us thinks is best: “Each man, in giving his vote, states his opinion on that point; and the general will is found by counting votes.” For this to work, people can’t just vote for the policies that they want. If each of us votes to drive to work, then the policy that prevails will be at odds with the general will. Instead, we have to vote on what we think is best, not just for ourselves, but for everyone. Once we discover the general will this way, we'll recognize that it benefits us all, and choose to adopt it as a law. By choosing laws through this democratic process, we freely accept the “chains” that the law lays upon us. But why does Rousseau think that people will vote in the right spirit? And why does he think they will choose to accept the outcome even if they don't like it? The answer to both questions lies in his views about what a truly democratic society requires. First, democratic citizens must receive extensive education in patriotism and civic virtue, beginning at an early age. “If children are … imbued with the laws of the state and the precepts of the general will; if they are taught to respect these above all things … we cannot doubt that they will learn to cherish one another mutually as brothers, [and] to will nothing contrary to the will of society.” In other words, if we're successfully trained to respect the general will “above all other things” and to “will nothing contrary” to it then we will cast our votes with the appropriate intention and accept the outcome of the vote. Second, a truly democratic society must be free of significant inequality. “No citizen shall ever be rich enough to buy another and none poor enough to be forced to sell himself.” Otherwise, our interests will often conflict. Policies that favor the rich undermine the interests of the poor and vice versa. In an egalitarian society, Rousseau thought, there would be no such conflicts. Policies that benefit me would also benefit you, because we’d have similar interests. Plus, when you and I are in similar positions, it’s not difficult to perceive what benefits us both. Rousseau envisioned a society where our equality makes it relatively easy to discern what policies are in our mutual benefit. Once we've figured out what these policies are, our rational self-interest and respect for each other will lead us to accept them. Rousseau’s vision is appealing in many ways, but it's also quite demanding. A legitimate state requires rigorous moral education and genuine economic equality. Plus, his democratic system requires that all laws be established through popular vote. No modern state that calls itself a democracy, meets these conditions. Some anarchists have embraced Rousseau’s account, since it seems to imply that no actual states are legitimate. Plus, isn’t Rousseau being overly optimistic about the effects of equality? Serious conflicts of interest can still arise among economic equals. And differences of opinion about morality, religion and values are likely to cause deep disagreements about which policies are in our common interest. Rousseau addressed some of these issues. All religions were to be tolerated except those that preach intolerance. An official censor would enforce high moral standards and no political parties or associations that lead people to identify with a group smaller than society as a whole would be allowed. Given these restrictions, it’s questionable how much Rousseu truly reconciles state authority with individual freedom. Finally, consider those who vote for the losing side in a question. Rousseau thought that, once the vote was in, these people would see that they were in error about the general will. But especially in a close vote, it seems you could, instead, reasonably conclude that the majority was wrong. Nonetheless, Rousseau held, dissent from the general will would be tantamount to treason and punishable by death. So you’d better change your mind and accept the majority view! In Rousseau’s words, you are “forced to be free.” But how can you be forced to be free? Isn’t that a paradox? Still, Rousseau’s idea that democracy is essential to reconcile individual freedom and state authority has been extremely influential. So has his emphasis on the crucial role of public education in a democratic society. By participating in a democratic process, and agreeing to abide by its outcome, it seems that we are doing something like giving our consent. Perhaps democratic participation holds the key to understanding how the state can have authority over us, given our moral right to be free. What do you think? [Intense music]