During the enlightenment a number of philosophical strands emerged that birthed our modern definition of freedom. Philosophers such as John Locke cast aside the vestiges of dark ages tyranny and ushered in a new era of freedom that would culminate in the birth of the American republic, founded upon natural rights.
Despite the fact that this age caused man to revile from monarchy, oligarchy, and aristocracy, it did not completely erase man’s desire to keep himself in slavery. In many ways, the supposedly democratic state imagined by some of the enlightenment philosophers was actually more tyrannical than monarchy.
Although hailed by many as being a manifestation of the enlightenment principles of democracy and freedom, The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau is actually where we find the intellectual roots of modern totalitarianism. Although a proponent of democracy Rousseau’s ideas perpetuated and popularized the idea of a totalitarian state that would dip its hand into every facet of an individual’s life. Rousseau believed that the relations between individuals “should be as limited, and relations with the entire body as extensive, as possible, in order that each citizen shall be at the same time perfectly independent of all his fellow citizens and excessively dependent upon the republic.” He wished to replace the interdependence of individuals upon each other with complete dependence upon the state, thereby establishing complete supremacy of the sovereign.
Rousseau’s destruction of relations independent of the state and his totalitarian approach to government make his state even more tyrannical than a monarchy which only concerns itself with a limited sphere. During WWII famed sociologist Robert Nisbet wrote,
“It is in Rousseau’s absorption of all forms of society into the unitary mould of the state that we may observe the first unmistakable appearance of the totalitarian theory of society. More perhaps than any other theorist, Rousseau, by the sheer brilliance of his style, has popularized that view of state and society which underlies totalitarianism and which has indeed made possible the acceptance of the total state in this century” (Jstor).
In Rousseau’s state, power lies not in the hands of individuals and voluntary associations. It lies in the hands of the collective to elect someone who will control them.
Indeed, Rousseau’s definition of freedom is completely warped and doesn’t rely on natural rights, but instead upon the dominance of what he calls the general will. In his view, the general will would be used in order to elect a type of philosopher king who would run the affairs of society. In his treatise on education, Emile, Rousseau illustrates his views about mankind. At the end of the book when Emile is grown, he asks his tutor, “Advise and control us… as long as I live I shall need you. I need you more than ever now that I am taking on the duties of manhood.” In the Social Contract, the lawgiver takes the place of the tutor and can even use trickery to convince the masses to submit to his will.
The mental abilities of the lawgiver are so important that an immovable public must be convinced that he has been inspired by the divine. “Tis sublime reasoning, which soars above the heads of the common people, is used by the lawgiver when he puts his own decision into the mouth of the immortals, thus compelling the divine authority of persons who cannot be moved by human prudence” (Rousseau 87). The reason of man becomes God and God knows no limits or boundaries. Although cloaked in the enlightened language of democracy and freedom, the philosophy of Rousseau and other rationalists is a recipe for complete control which allows the masses to sell themselves and their fellow men into a form of slavery whereby the supremacy of natural rights, family, and church are usurped by state control.
Despite being highly propagandized as a statement on democratic principles, Rousseau’s Social Contract attempted to destroy natural rights and give a democratic government even more power than a monarchy, oligarchy, or aristocracy. The effects of his philosophy can be seen to this day with people who wish to make the state the supreme arbiter of individual affairs. Counteracting this tyrannical current requires an adherence to founding principles which put a precedence on an individual’s natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
