History of social contract theories
Social contract theories have been around since the first forms of
society arose in the ancient world, one of the best known dialogues
being Plato's De Res Publica, which sets out that the principle
of social contract is to establish convenants in order to enforce the
mutual agreement neither to inflict injustice, nor to suffer injustice.
Marsilius of Padua would develop a theory quite similar to modern-day social
contract theories. In his writing, Defensor Pacis (1324), he states
that not the Church, but the prince has autonomy and the right of
jurisdiction within his territory, only to be bound by mandate of the
people and their consent, as the people are the source of all political
power and government. The prince has to carry out his obligations- if he
fails to do so by violating the law, he will be punished.
Common features of and differences between Social Contract Theories: a comparison
1. State of Nature
The
original state is the State of Nature, in which men have no order, no
law and no bodies to enforce law. How the "State of Nature" is viewed by
a social contract theorist, depends on the context in which the author
himself is placed: witnessing a series of civil wars, it is
understandable that Hobbes predicted life in a state of nature to be
"brutish and short" and that only absolutism would make an end of this
actual state of war in the seventeenth century.
Although Locke's
State of Nature, a pre-political state, is not considered devoid of
morality- on the contrary, the State of Nature is the state of liberty
where people even recognize the Law of Nature and therefore do not harm
each other- the equality of men and a lack of organization is what will
amount to a rather insecure and unsafe state of being. Emphasizing the
individual right to "Life, Liberty and Estate", the
right to Property, it should not surprise that Locke has written his
thesis in favor of the rising middle class in the spirit of the early
Age of Enlightenment. That is probably the main reason why Locke's
conceptions of the "State of Nature" and the social contract cannot be
as unyielding as Hobbes' conceptions were- but then again, Locke's
writings were published after the Glorious Revolution (1688); worlds
apart from the English Civil War that has inspired Hobbes to writing his
infamous Leviathan (1651).
Rousseau's view of the State of Nature is surprisingly positive (he spent his days in the French salons chatting about on intellectual topics): the State of Nature seemed like paradise, but the introduction of property and culture has made it impossible for man to stay in the State of Nature. In that respect,
"Contrat social" (1780) is clear and concise on the importance of establishing society on a "volonté générale" rather than on a "volonté de tous".
I would go as far as to say that
Hobbes' Leviathan accurately describes the world we live in, whereas
Locke seemed merely blinded by the favor of his audience: as life in the
State of Nature was all that perfect and men would, by nature, live up
to their obligations, then it is rather inconsistent to suppose that
only the acquisition of property leads to unsafety and that a simple
increase in conflicts would amount to a state of war.
It seems to me
that, behind his rhetoric, Locke makes a quite similar point. The state
of nature may not be equal to a state of war like it is in Hobbes' view,
but the state of nature will result in a state of war to the slightest.
I would not say that an abolute sovereign is the solution to modern
global troubles (on the contrary), but it goes to show that on a global
scale, the lack of effective government indeed in the event results in a
poor and brutish life, overall unsafety and insecurity.
2. Pactum unionis and (subsequent) pactum subjectionis
Common
to all social contract theories are either pactum unionis or pactum
subjectionis, or a simultaneous application of both pacta, sometimes
referred to as the first being the "phase of historical fact" and the
latter being the "phase of legal reason" The pactum unionis implies that
men have passed from a State of Nature to a State of Society by means
of a contract by which they have imposed on themselves the obligation to
respect each others rights, thus, a pact with horizontal effect; the
pactum subjectionis implies that people undertake to obey the
government, chosen by them
(W. Friedman, Natural Law and Social Contract, London 1967, p.118).
Comparing
Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, it becomes clear that Hobbes has envisioned
solely a pactum subjectionis, for only an absolute sovereign could
govern effectively; Locke envisioned the pactum unionis and pactum
subjectionis subsequently; in Rousseau's theory, as the sovereign is
inherent to "volonté générale", as there is no higher authority or
power, no other pact than the pactum unionis is essential to his
conception of social contract.
3. Marking the end of the Ages of "divine law" and Medieval incorporate personality
One main feature that is common to all social contract theories, is that
the source of all political power lies within the people; this view
distincts the early Ages of Enlightenment from the Medieval Period, in
which the idea of the existence of "divine law", granting political
authority to the sovereign, would govern the people.
According to Friedman, another common feature is the individualistic and
"atomistic conception" of society, in that the state is the legal
creation of indivdual will, as opposed to the organic view of society
and incorporate personality as was applicable to society in the
Medieval.
