The Social Contract Theory: Origin of State

Origin of State:
The Social Contract Theory

B.A-I
Kiran Sharma
Associate Professor
Department of Political Science
P.G.Govt.College,Sector-11
Chandigarh
Social Contract Theory about the origin of the
State remained quite popular up to 18th century.
According to this theory State is an artificial
institution made by men and it is outcome of a
Social Contract. This theory explains the origin of
the State, as well as the relations between the ruler
and the subjects.
During the 19th century this theory could
not hold grounds in face of scientific and logical
arguments. The views of eminent philosophers like
Hume, Bentham and Montesquieu etc. dealt a
serious blow to this theory.
Main Supporters of Social Contract Theory:
 Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) English Philosopher

(Book:Leviathan)
 John Locke ( 1632 – 1704) English Philosopher

( Book: Two Treatises of Government)
 Jean Jacques Rousseau ( 1712 –1778)French Philosopher

(Book: The Social Contract)
Although there is marked difference of opinion among
the view points of Hobbes ,Locke and Rousseau, yet
all of them agree on the following three points:
1. Before the birth of the state the individual use to live
in the State of Nature.
2. State is the outcome of social contract.
3. The relations between the rulers and the ruled
depends upon the nature of the contract.
In this theory, there is a conception of human
interaction before society and state emerged. This is
called the State of Nature. Dissatisfaction in this state
prompted man to enter into a social contract
resulting in the establishment of the state.
Thomas Hobbes
State of Nature: According to Hobbes man is selfish, egoist, competitive,

violent, distrustful and quarrelsome by nature. He strives for power and
control. Thus, in the state of nature ‘ Might is Right’ prevails and “life was
solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” Force and fraud are the cardinal
values . It is a war of all against all.
Social Contract: People decide to enter into a contract due to fear of death and
a desire for good living. They sign one contract with each other saying “ I
authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man on this
condition, that you give up your right to him, and authorize all his actions in
like manner.”
Relation between the Rulers and the Ruled: The contract was among the
people and the King was not a party to it. Thus, the conditions of the contract
did not apply to the King. People can not oppose the king. The powers of the
king will be unlimited and his order will be the law of the land.
Hobbes was the supporter of unlimited, indivisible and absolute sovereignty.
John Locke
 State of Nature: Locke is of the opinion that peace, security,
cooperation and freedom prevailed in the State of Nature. People had
sympathy for each other and lived peacefully. The Laws of Nature
regulated the life of the people. Individual enjoyed the right to life,
liberty and property which are the Natural Rights.
 Social Contract: Due to absence of judicial or governing authority ,
life of the individual in State of Nature, with the passage of time,
became chaotic and difficult. So , people entered into two contracts
in order to establish the State. The first contract was amongst the
people to form a State wherein the Laws of Nature were replaced by the
Social Laws. The second contract bestowed upon the Government or
the Ruler the limited powers to govern the people. Locke was in favour
of limited Monarchy.
 Relation between Ruler and Ruled: As the King will be party to
the contract, he will be bound by the terms of the contract. If the Ruler
fails to protect the interest of the people, the latter will be free to reject
the contract and select a new ruler.
Rousseau
 State of Nature: Rousseau is of the opinion that the man lived the
life of a ‘ Noble Savage’ in the State of Nature. He was self sufficient,
contented, fearless and enjoyed liberty in the State of Nature. There
was no sense of mine and thine, life was simple. It was the Golden Age.
 Social Contract : With the emergence of the institution of private
property, the peaceful life in the State of Nature was disturbed. Mutual
conflicts arose with increasing sense of ‘ mine’ and ‘thine’. ‘Might is
Right’ became the rule . People entered into one contract where the
individual surrendered all his rights to the collective will, popularly
known as the ‘ General Will’ of the people. Thus, the right to govern
himself is not surrendered to any alien party but to himself.
 Relation between the Ruler and the Ruled: Rousseau supported
‘popular sovereignty’ as the supreme power was not given to an
individual or a group but to the ‘General Will’ which is the sum total
of the real wills of all the people taken together. The General Will
posses supreme, absolute and unlimited power.
Criticism on Social Contract Theory
The social contract theory began to decline in the opening years of the
19th century . It was alleged to be bad history , bad law , bad logic and a
bad philosophy .
Criticism on Historical Grounds
 No historical proof of this theory .

 Man is not individualist~ He is a social animal and has lived as an
integral part of the family or the tribe.
 This theory is against the course of history~ The various steps in the
birth and evolution of the state had been the family , the clan , the
tribe, the city state, the feudal state and the nation state.
 Unit of society was not individual but Family ~ Contractualists regard
the individual as the primary unit of society , while social scientists
opine that the earliest man had been living in families.
Criticism on Legal Grounds
 Contract applies only to the parties who signed the contract .

 No contract is possible in the State of Anarchy
 Law and rights can be possible only in the state ~ This raises questions
regarding Lockes’ perception of Natural Rights and Natural Laws in the
State of Nature.
Criticism on Logical Grounds

 Abrupt change in human nature is not possible .
 Freedom and Rights are not possible in State of Nature.
 Aims or objectives of the State are not limited as viewed by the
contractualists.
Criticism on Philosophical Grounds
 State is not an artificial institution ~ It is a natural institution which is

the outcome of an evolutionary process.
 State is not a toy which can be taken apart and recast by rejecting an old
contract and making a new one as Locke suggests.
 State is essential ~ the existence of state has been commensurate with
that of man and it is impossible to think of any period of history where
the state did not exist in one form or the other .
Perils Of the Theory
 It can be a dangerous theory ~ it gives the idea that if men can make a
state , they can also destroy it just by breaking the contract. This can
give rise to anarchy .
 It encourages absolutism ~ Hobbes was a supporter of absolute
monarchy.
 It encourages rebellion~ arms the individual with the right to revolt
against state.
Importance of the Theory
 People’s consent is the basis of state

 Democratic theory~ Locke considered the government a trust which is
made responsible to the people. Rousseau was an ardent supporter of
‘Popular Sovereignty’ . He bestowed the supreme power to the ‘General
Will’.
 Puts an end to the Theory of Divine Rights of King
 Importance of this theory in practical politics ~ Many scholars regard
that ‘Social Contract’ of Rousseau greatly influenced practical political
events like , the dethroning of English monarch James II in 1689 ,
American War Of Independence in 1776 and the French Revolution of
1789.
Hobbes Locke Rousseau
( Leviantham) (Two Treatises on (Social Contract)
Government)
State of Nature man is selfish, egoist,

competitive, violent,
Peace, security, cooperation and
freedom prevailed in the State
Man lived the life of a
‘ Noble Savage’ in the State of
distrustful and quarrelsome of Nature. The Laws of Nature Nature. He was self sufficient,
by nature. regulated the life of the people. contented, fearless and enjoyed
‘ Might is Right’ prevails and Individual enjoyed the right to liberty in the State of Nature.
“life was solitary, poor, nasty, life, liberty and property which There was no sense of mine and
brutish and short.” Force and are the Natural Rights. thine, life was simple. It was the
fraud are the cardinal values . It Golden Age
is a war of all against all.
Social Contract one contract with each other

saying “ I authorize and give up
two contracts- The first
contract ~ amongst the people
One contract where the
individual surrendered all his
my right of governing myself to to form a State . The second rights to the collective will,
this man on this condition, that contract bestowed upon the popularly known as the ‘
you give up your right to him, Government or the Ruler the General Will’ of the people.
and authorize all his actions in limited powers to govern the
like manner.” people. Locke was in favor of
limited Monarchy.
Relationship King was not a party to it. Thus,

the conditions of the contract
As the King will be party to the
contract, he will be bound by
Rousseau supported ‘popular
sovereignty’ as the supreme
between Ruler and did not apply to the King. the terms of the contract. If the power was not given to an
the Ruled People can not oppose the king.
Hobbes supported unlimited,
Ruler fails to protect the
interest of the people, the latter
individual or a group but to the
‘General Will’ which is the sum
indivisible and absolute will be free to reject the total of the real wills of all the
sovereignty. contract and select a new ruler. people taken together. The
General Will posses supreme,
absolute and unlimited power.

The Social Contract Theory: Origin of State

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Social Contract Theory: Origin of State

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Social Contract Theory: Origin of State

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Origin of State:

The Social Contract Theory

 Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) English Philosopher

 John Locke ( 1632 – 1704) English Philosopher

 Jean Jacques Rousseau ( 1712 –1778)French Philosopher

State of Nature: According to Hobbes man is selfish, egoist, competitive,

 No historical proof of this theory .

 Contract applies only to the parties who signed the contract .

Criticism on Logical Grounds

 State is not an artificial institution ~ It is a natural institution which is

 People’s consent is the basis of state

State of Nature man is selfish, egoist,

Social Contract one contract with each other

Relationship King was not a party to it. Thus,

You might also like