Introduction
The natural freedom of human beings in the original state of nature is different from the freedom made possible by the social contract of the general will. Two concepts are discussed in John Jacque Rousseau’s famous political writings: Second Discourse and On Social Contract. The first concept of freedom is primitive freedom, and the second one is societal freedom. However, reasonable human beings cannot have both freedoms at once and must only choose one of them as the notion of freedom with which they want to live the rest of their lives. In contrast, the freedom made possible by the social contract of the general will is more collectivistic, requiring all people to be bound by general rules but permitting greater long-term security(Lecture 3, pol320, p. 13). In Rousseau’s Second Discourse and On Social Contract, he suggests that the natural freedom of human beings in the state of nature is individualistic, allowing the person more absolute freedom but with less security.
The Nature of Primitive Freedom
Based on Individualistic, the nature of primitive freedom is the exact opposite of what it means to be free: “Indolence or ignorance was man’s first condition. He was in this state” (Rousseau 2014). In other words, the nature of primitive freedom can be compared to those living in absolute freedom but experiencing insufficient security. This concept emphasizes that individuals can live their own life, act on their own judgement, and pursue their own values in the way they deem best. Initially, people were previously free to act as they pleased without the agreement but then voluntarily agreed to it because it offered them better security and happiness. Rousseau appears to be referring to what is occasionally referred to as “natural liberty”—a consideration whereby humans are self-creatures free of clause of the constitution or natural laws—in his initial account of human nature (Lecture 3, pol320, p. 14). However, he appears to be differentiating between these types of freedom, implying that natural liberty is not all-encompassing. In some cases, what is considered “natural” or “innate” is limited by the laws of nature. Therefore people’s interests are best served by allowing maximum individual freedom and responsibility.
Freedom is absolute in primitive freedom in efforts to boost self-confidence, enhance creativity, and promote individual excellence. Personal goals and ideas are the foremost factors in individualism motivated by benefits and rewards. However, security is insufficient in individualistic freedom since everyone has utter freedom, potentially crossing and limiting others’ freedom leading to a lack of cooperation and increased conflicts. Everyone is concerned about their own wellness hence less charitable activities and more conflict between the advantaged and disadvantaged.
The Nature of Societal Freedom
Societal freedom is based on the collectivistic, or general, inclusion of groups and people, thus offering people limited freedom and maximum security. Since its inception, the social contract theory has significantly impacted political philosophy. The Rousseau’s concept of freedom is unpopular because of the “state of nature” argument. Instead of seeing society as an unnatural force that robs people of their individuality, some argue that we would perish if we did not have it to help us survive. Rousseau developed the social contract theory to understand the connection between individuals and the state, arguing that life would be “vicious, brutal, and short” if it were not for it. As a result, society is seen as a contract that shields us from the fear of survival. Having given up their natural freedom, people obtained a safer way of living in a law-abiding society.
Social freedom allows divergent political and moral groups to coexist and have a common agreement or disagreement at a normative level. People have equal rights, advantages, and abilities to move within social groups. For instance, the middle class and the poor have equal chances of creating wealth and gaining rich status. However, people are grouped according to their social identity, self-development, social solidarity, and intimate relationships; hence, individual freedom is limited by the condition of social life. Individual limitation and social boundaries in societal freedom ensure maximum security. People are governed, guided, and grouped by social and moral standards; hence they maintain precautions and safety.
A Life in a Civilized Society
Straightforwardly, the person living in a civilized society is less free due to the laws imposed on him. However, this can be supported by Ulysses’ contract, a voluntary choice destined to connect oneself in the coming years. In his analysis of how the social contract has worked differently in different places and times, Rousseau (2014) relies heavily on these elements. Because of this, it has not always worked consistently in all locations and times. It is especially critical for those who must rely on each other for survival in the wild. For instance, without the protection of a ruling government, a person loses the security that the social compact provides. Hence, it is difficult to prove or disprove the social contract theory because we cannot go back to nature and see what happens. However, the results of various attempts to create a social contract can be examined to see if Hobbes’ claims are supported.
Defining what is permissible can be done by referring to the definition of liberty. In the meantime, however, it is constrained by a desire to be happy. This is the main reason since it conflicts with or is deemed dangerous to other people’s well-being. If, for example, every man could take the property of another, society would be unable to maintain its sense of fairness without the assistance of a higher authority. As an alternative, some desires may not be perceived as threats because they do not appear to harm anyone in the immediate vicinity. The social contract may not adequately protect people in this situation. For example, the social contract fails to protect a person’s right to be happy if they have a desire that can only be satisfied by stealing something others already have. This necessitates the distinction between one’s desires and those of another and demonstrates the limits imposed on a civilized man.
The Difference between the Freedoms
The freedom discussed so far is distinct from the freedom made possible by the social contract. For instance, based on the difference, primitive freedom majors on the individual’s will. In contrast, civil freedom focuses on the general will. There are a few rules and laws to protect human beings from harm. In Rousseau’s (2014) view, this is a form of liberty made possible by the emergence of social institutions that guarantee safety for people. To rid themselves of a threat that could harm or pain them, humans try to eliminate it, says philosopher Rousseau (2014). For this, they can either resort to violence or form alliances with others who will protect them from external threats. Another way of putting it is that Rousseau (2014) believes that people have always had the freedom to pursue pleasure and gain to ensure their safety and well-being.
On the other hand, most anthropological evidence on humanity’s past suggests that most societies were not as rigidly organized as this account of human nature. Even if they may have wanted to, it is not true that people entered the social contract because it provided them with more security and happiness. As a result, Rousseau (2014) argues that the social contract was an expression of human freedom despite its origins. After acting on their impulses, they decided to enter it because they felt safe and happy therein.
Conclusion
Primitive freedom seems initially more accessible, but there are limitations, for example, medical care may be less accessible. On the other hand, the social contract was not an expression of freedom in the way it first appeared to be. According to Rousseau, human freedom was manifested in a variety of ways, most notably in the desire to remove obstacles that stood in the way of one’s pursuit of happiness. However, we can be sure that this account does not define freedom universally. Therefore, even if people accept it, they can still pursue other desires or enter social contracts to achieve happiness and security.
References
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 2014. The Social Contract and Discourse. Translated by Williams, David Lay. New York: Cambridge University Press.