Susquehanna University Political Review

Volume 7 Article 3

2016

Technology and The Social Contract: Is a Direct

Democracy Possible Today?
Hope Sweeden
Susquehanna University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.susqu.edu/supr

Part of the American Politics Commons, and the International Relations Commons

Recommended Citation
Sweeden, Hope (2016) "Technology and The Social Contract: Is a Direct Democracy Possible Today?," Susquehanna University
Political Review: Vol. 7 , Article 3.
Available at: https://scholarlycommons.susqu.edu/supr/vol7/iss1/3

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Susquehanna University Political
Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].
 Technology and The
Social Contract: Is a
Direct Democracy
Possible Today?
By Hope Swedeen, Class of 2016

ABSTRACT
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract addresses
the viability of direct democracy, and he expresses several
truths still apparent today, including the value of a direct
rather than representative system and its ability to create and
ensure the protection of equality. He lists the determination
of a general will as a stipulation of direct democracy, upon
which he says political decisions should be made. This paper
is a response to Rousseau’s notion that direct democracy is
ineffectual in a state with a large population. It looks to
technology as a means of understanding how direct
democracy may be more possible today despite Rousseau’s
three main contentions that distance, diversity, and the
impossibility of determining the general will would make
democracy ineffectual. First, I argue that technology is able
to connect people across vast distances, eliminating
Rousseau’s distance-related objection. Second, although
Rousseau contends that diversity hinders direct democracy
because citizens are not capable of discerning the general
27
will of populations with varied and unfamiliar views,
technology has made diversity more visible than ever. We
are therefore able to identify a general will through the study
and understanding of others’ ideologies despite increased
diversity. Determining the general will is now more possible
than ever because, with the advancement of technology,
people are in constant communication. Finally, I assert that,
contrary to Rousseau’s view, direct democracy is more
likely to succeed in a largely populated state because modern
technology allows its users to cross divides, fostering and
disseminating communities of ideas within and across
nations.

TECHNOLOGY AND THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

Several philosophers have theorized that without
government, humankind would be intrinsically trapped
within a “state of nature.” This “state,” as it were, is argued
to be without law or order and is at the root of humanity’s
need for government rule. It is through the creation of
government, philosophers have argued, that humanity is
liberated from its natural state that is without freedoms and
transplanted into a harmonious existence in which freedom
is guaranteed. In Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract,
this notion goes further and calls for a more equitable
distribution of these freedoms through the creation of direct
democracies. That said, Rousseau contends that a direct
democracy is only possible in states with relatively small
populations; he would therefore think it impossible for a
nation such as the United States to achieve a system of direct
democracy, the only truly democratic form of democracy,

28
because of the sheer vastness of its population. However, in
recent years, the potential for this contention to be disproved
has increased dramatically as the world has embraced and
capitalized on technological advancements. Although the
population of the United States is several times larger than
what Rousseau presumed would be an optimum size for
direct democracy, the number of people and the immense
distance between them has become less of a hindrance to the
democratic process than it may have been in the past because
of technology’s ability to connect previously isolated
individuals. Because of technology, direct democracy could
be more practical today than ever before despite Rousseau’s
claim that it cannot function in a largely populated state. In
fact, a direct democracy might now be even more effective
than electoral democracy in a state that does have a larger
population, such as the United States, because of the
growing access to and use of technology.

To begin The Social Contract, Rousseau speaks to

the original state of humanity, which he explains as a “state
of nature,” a state that does not and cannot allow for
satisfactory freedoms. Although we are forever free to do as
we please as individuals within the state of nature, we are
not free from the wills of other individuals. In Rousseau’s
words, “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains”
(2008, 14). Rousseau’s remedy to this state of alienable
freedoms is government, as he believes that the only way to
be truly free is to conform to a social order that will ensure
the freedoms of all to live peacefully. He states, “The social
order is a sacred right which is the basis of all other rights.

29
Nevertheless, this right does not come from nature, and must
therefore be founded on conventions” (Rousseau 2008, 14),
as “conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority
among men” (Rousseau 2008, 17). According to Rousseau,
before humans are thrust into a government-ruled society,
we lack the freedom to pursue morality in our actions
because we are constrained by our needs and the threat of
others’ individual needs being prioritized over our own.
Through the formation of a civil state, then, Rousseau
contends that humans gain “moral liberty, which alone
makes him truly master of himself; for the mere impulse of
appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we
prescribe to ourselves is liberty” (2008, 28). It is through
convention and government, therefore, that we become truly
free as individuals, though, paradoxically, we are
constrained by the rule of our government’s laws and
“forced to be free” (Rousseau 2008, 27).

In order to address this paradox, Rousseau commits

to illustrating the ideal form of government throughout The
Social Contract. He says,

The problem is to find a form of association which

will defend and protect with the whole common force
the person and goods of each associate, and in which
each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey
himself alone, and remain as free as before.
(Rousseau 2008, 23)

For Rousseau, the only government that can create true

freedoms, where all people can act within the confines of the
30
state but still freely operate as individuals, is a direct
democracy. In a direct democracy, Rousseau argues, the
people are free to govern themselves, having a direct say in
their government’s decisions. Although they are making
collective decisions, they are free individuals with freedoms
guaranteed to them by the state. The people therefore are
entrusted with the ability to create greater equality in the
distribution of freedoms that are ensured by the state, and
because they are working as a collective body, they cannot
make decisions that would usurp the freedom of any citizen
(Rousseau 2008, 26).

This collective decision-making is what Rousseau

calls the “general will,” which he describes in detail as being
a will that is somewhat “universal,” or the most popular will,
and must be followed by all within the state so that everyone
may live harmoniously. Although the general will is not
initially universally known, through voting, we can
determine the general will and act accordingly. Rousseau
says, “Each of us puts his person and all his power in
common under the supreme direction of the general will,
and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as
an indivisible part of the whole” (2008, 24). Whether to
obey the general will is not so much a matter of choice as a
matter of pertinence. According to Rousseau, “Whoever
refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so
by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will
be forced to be free” (2008, 27).

31
 Although Rousseau does hold that a democracy is the
ideal form of statehood for a free body of people, he makes
it clear that there must remain a distinction between direct
and electoral democracy and that only through direct
democracy can the people within it be truly free. As
previously established, without freedom, Rousseau contends
that humans are immoral, basing decisions not on what is
best but on what is necessary for their individual survival,
and therefore self-governance as the only means to achieve
true freedom. Therefore, by giving up the right to directly
determine our laws, we give up our freedom, or, as Rousseau
says, we give up the basic need and duty of humanity.
Rousseau contends,

To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man, to

surrender the rights of humanity and even its duties.
For him who renounces everything no indemnity is
possible. Such a renunciation is incomparable with
man’s nature; to remove all liberty from his will is to
remove all morality from his acts. (2008, 18)

In other words, by consenting to be governed by an elected

body, adopting a representative democracy, people give up
their freedoms to the will of others. These people, chosen to
represent the people, cannot know the general will and
would not be obligated to act upon the general will were it
made apparent to them. Instead, they act upon the individual
wills of the people, arguing for and setting laws based on
individual or group beliefs and values rather than making

32
decisions that are a representation of the general
population’s will.

Therefore, an electoral, or representative democracy,

according to Rousseau, is nothing less than a dehumanizing
form of slavery, subjecting the people to the will of the few.
He says, “The moment a people allows itself to be
represented, it is no longer free” (2008, 96). A direct
democracy, then, is the best form of government, in
Rousseau’s eyes, as it allows for true freedom of the people,
a unified society, and a harmonious existence that is not
created through oppression but through understanding of the
will of the collective body politic. Even still, Rousseau finds
issue in this assertion that a direct democracy is the most
ideal form of government, as he acknowledges that direct
democracies are limited in their capabilities based on the
potential for diversity in the makeup of a state itself. In some
states, Rousseau would not view direct democracy as ideal
and would contrastingly suggest that it is rather impossible.
The United States would fall into this realm, as Rousseau
would certainly believe that the creation of a truly direct
democracy in the United States would be physically
impracticable.

For Rousseau, a direct democracy is only practical in

a geographically small state with a small, unified population.
In a large population, Rousseau says that liberties are lost as
people lose the weight of their voice in government.
Although he does say that “what makes the will general is
less the number of voters than the common interest uniting

33
them,” this lends itself to the implication that a larger body
of people cannot be united by this common interest
(Rousseau 2008, 37). For Rousseau, the larger and more
diverse a population becomes, the less practical a direct
democracy will become as well because the people’s voices
will be heard exponentially less as the number of people
required to conform to the general will increases. So too, the
number of notions of what the general will is will also grow
with the population, and the body of people, intended to be
one whole, will become segments based on individuals’
ideas of what the general will is. Rousseau says that it
follows that the greater the number of people, the less
influence an individual vote can have. He says, “If the
people numbers a hundred thousand… his vote, being
reduced to one hundred thousandth part, has ten times less
influence… From this it follows that, the larger the State, the
less the liberty” (2008, 61).

According to Rousseau,

In every body politic there is a maximum strength

which it cannot exceed and which it only loses by
increasing in size. Every extension of the social tie
means its relaxation; and, generally speaking, a small
State is stronger in proportion than a great one.
(2008, 49-50)

For a direct democracy, this maximum strength must be very

small, as Rousseau contends that if it is not, the population
will become too great and diverse to be controlled by a single
will, and therefore the executive branch of government,
34
meant to enforce the general will, must become larger so that
it can extend to protect the freedoms of a larger population
(Rousseau 2008, 62). In a smaller state, it is possible for the
people to agree on laws and ways of life because they share
geographical hardships and community ideals, beliefs,
practices, and values. However, once this population
becomes more diverse in all of these respects, Rousseau
believes that the people can no longer govern themselves
objectively and will begin to mistake the general will for
their individual or community will (2008, 62).

It follows, then, that a direct democracy would either

become tyrannical, taken over by the wills of one segment
of the population, or would become an electoral democracy
to make the democratic process more practical for a more
expansive nation. If a democracy does become
representative, the corporate will, or that which lies between
the will of the people and the individual will, becomes most
dominant, and pays less heed to the individual or general
wills than is necessary for a state’s functionality as an entity
meant to be representative of its people. Rather, the
executive government would become so powerful that it
hinders the democratic process and does not allow for the
general will to be known at all and determines the general
will for itself (Rousseau 2008, 62).

Rousseau further supports his supposition that

democracy is only practical in small states by addressing
smaller, though not insignificant, challenges that a state
would confront as it grows. One of these challenges,

35
Rousseau says, is distance. He says, “Long distances make
administration more difficult” (2008, 50), and “the more the
distance between people and government increases, the more
burdensome tribute becomes” (2008, 80). He poses these
points for a number of reasons. Firstly, it would be difficult
for a community to gather and discuss its laws if that society
is spread out across thousands of miles and there are millions
of people to be assembled. This form of gathering would be
both impossible and time-consuming, as the people would
need to travel to one spot at the same time. Given the fact
that so many people cannot physically fit into one space, let
alone be heard or listened to, a direct democratic discussion
would seem impossible for a state as large as the United
States. Further, determining a vote count when every
individual is casting a vote would be impossible, according
to Rousseau’s notion of democratic proceedings. The
process of voting, in its entirety, then, would be impossible,
by Rousseau’s account, in a large state.

He also contends that it would be impractical and not

merely impossible, as the greater the distance between
people meant to participate in a direct democracy, the greater
the cost to the state becomes (2008, 50). With each person
expected to gather for a democratic proceeding, their profits
for their days, weeks, or months of absence would be too
large to be acceptable, and there is no solution to this
problem other than to exclude certain citizens from the
voting process or make use of absentee ballots. Though,
with absentee ballots comes the issue of a lack of
participation in determining the general will, as one cannot

36
be involved in the group conversation that would make that
will clearer to all.

Rousseau’s assertions that direct democracy cannot

function within a largely populated state are by no means
unfounded. It is logical to suppose that as the population
grows and becomes more diverse, the general will may
become more convoluted. It is also true that this would
likely cause breaks in the sovereign people, as a whole,
creating segmented interest groups that mistake their
individual wills for the general will and who therefore wish
to popularize that will. In this instance, Rousseau’s
contention that a larger, more powerful executive
government would be created is a possibility of the likeliest
kind simply because the number of people who do not
believe in the legitimacy of the general will would surely
increase along with the population and diverse ideals. The
people, then, would indeed need to be “forced to be free” by
the executive branch if they were to attempt to cast off the
general will.

However, this, as Rousseau notes, would lead to an

executive government that, if too powerful, could also ignore
the general will and operate based on its own conclusions of
what is best for the State. Rousseau makes it clear that the
government, if left to make decisions on behalf of the people,
would not conform to the general will, and he states:

The general will is always weakest, the corporate

will second, and the individual will strongest of all;
so that, in the government, each member is first of all
37
 himself, then a magistrate, and then a citizen – in an
order exactly the reverse of what the social system
requires. (2008, 65)

Although all of Rousseau’s points hold merit to some

degree, it cannot be said that he is entirely correct or that his
ideas are all applicable in today’s society. It is still true that
without a system of government, humanity is not free. We
can see in political or religious groups who have no
established state or formal government that without
legitimacy in statehood, people cannot always function as
human beings should. They are not free. In areas controlled
by terror organizations, such as ISIS, there is no freedom.
There is no protection from the will of one or of the few. To
this extent, Rousseau’s contention that freedom can only be
achieved through statehood is still applicable today. Further,
his demand for a direct, rather than representative
democracy also has merits within contemporary contexts, as
it is true that the people of the United States are not truly free
to govern themselves and are demanding more control over
their own governance every day. The applicability of
Rousseau’s theory to today’s world ends here.

Because of modern technological advancements, and

the advancements in the uses of these technologies, society
has become fit to lend itself to a direct democracy in the
United States and perhaps globally. In the modern world,
Rousseau’s assertion that direct democracy will fail under
the pressures of a large population cannot hold true. It
cannot be said that with current technology, the large

38
population of the United States would make direct
democracy impossible despite any claims Rousseau makes
to the contrary. Rousseau addresses three main points in
relationship to a large population’s impact on the success of
direct democracy, which relate to distance, diversity, and the
general will. In reference to distance, Rousseau says that as
the population grows, so too does the geographical space
between people, and this causes an inability of the sovereign
body to work as a collective on voting and determining the
general will. However, today, distance between people does
not create obstacles in the processes of voting and
discussion. Technology spans the geographical divides of
our population, even the world, because through various
mediums, all people can, in fact, be connected to one another
nearly instantaneously. Using social media, people interact
constantly wherever they are, and no matter how wide-
spread the populace has become, people have found ways to
communicate and discuss government action all over the
United States, and indeed all over the world.

Rousseau’s second point regarding the increase in

population addresses the growth of diversity within a larger,
more wide-spread populace leads into his third point
regarding the general will. According to Rousseau, as a
population diversifies, it becomes less possible for a general
will to be determined or even to exist. Rousseau says that
because we cannot identify with each individual who has
needs that diverge from our own, we cannot formulate a
general will, and we would be liable to mistake our own wills
for the general will if we were to attempt to unite these

39
diverse individual wills. While this may have been true in
Rousseau’s time, when very little could be said for people’s
knowledge of those outside of their small communities or of
people who did not often meet with wills counter to their
own, it cannot be said to hold true today considering the
drastic differences in society and the advancements in the
functionality, access, and operation of technology. People
are now capable of creating a digital presentation of
themselves through social media technologies like Twitter,
Instagram, and Facebook, sharing their identities, thoughts,
ideas, and questions. Because users are encouraged to share
their own stories and ideas, as well as their names, there is
substantially more access to information about the makeup
of our population. The amount of diversity, while very high,
as Rousseau suggests it should be in larger populations, is
visible. We can therefore study it, grow to understand it, and
engage with it so that, rather than creating divides, diversity
unites people within a nation and around the world.

Moreover, it seems that rather than being separate

from the individual will, the general will is instead informed
by it. It would be impractical for individuals to give up their
own concerns to determine the concerns or will of the
populous as a whole; furthermore, when determining what is
in the best interest of all, an individual’s understanding of a
“best interest” would naturally be shaped by one’s individual
ideas of what is “best” and how these interests can be served.
It seems more likely, then, that the individual will does not
remove itself from the general will but rather informs and
creates the general will, as Rousseau upholds the individual

40
will as the strongest form, and this is true, especially in the
United States (2008, 65).

It could then be concluded that Rousseau is right in

thinking that a plethora of individual wills brought on by a
larger population would, in fact, make direct democracy less
practicable. However, again, technology has made this
concern inviable, and it has, perhaps, turned what would
once have made direct democracy impracticable – a large
population – into rather an aide of the model. For, as the
population grows, the community of ideas expands and
provides each person greater insight into the thoughts and
wills of others, letting these inform their own wills and
ideals. Technology, then, can help inform us, through a
social context, of other individual wills, and it provides a
platform for discussion and compromise, and thereby
creation of the general will. Simply put, through accelerated
and mediated social interaction, made possible by advanced
technology, we, as a population, have the direct ability to
create and maintain the functional general will by which our
lives can be ruled despite Rousseau’s contention that the
general will must be free from the influence of individual
wills.

In modern times, society is in a state of constant

connectivity. When once there was a limit to how far the
internet could extend, it is now available via Wi-Fi, through
data plans, and with mobile hotspots. Connectivity is
everywhere, and people have begun to turn this connectivity
into connectedness. We are using social media to talk about

41
current events, sharing opinions and being exposed to the
ideas of others. We are watching videos of news broadcasts,
satirical television shows, and dialogues between people
with diverse views of the world and the United States. We
are hearing opinions on the radio, and we are hearing music
that has been chosen, by general consensus, to be “today’s
hits.” All of our surroundings, all of our internet activity and
use of technology, is working to demonstrate the views of
those with whom we do not necessarily identify. We are
seeing the perspectives of everyone across the country, and
in the world, and whether intentionally or not, we are
exposed to the wills and ways of living that are alike and in
contrast to our own. Whether people feel positively or
negatively about others’ ways of life, it is impossible to be
ignorant of their existence or be wholly unaffected by their
place in the world or our society.

There are blog posts, alternative news feeds, and

social movements advertised on every social media platform
that can shed light on the lives of people we might never
have considered before. The distribution of news, via print,
TV, radio, blogs, social media, and virtually any form of
technology to be had, shows us parts of the world that we
might have been strangers to five years or five days ago. The
November, 2015 terror attacks in Paris have shown the
potential of mass media, including social media, to
disseminate news at previously unheard-of speeds and unite
people all over the world. The climate of terror has helped
to create a global discussion between people who are
interested in looking outside of themselves to understand the

42
will of others, or what leads to people’s actions, and
understanding is found through virtual discussion using
nearly every medium of technology. These attacks, and the
swiftness with which the world is informed of them, creates
a world-wide general will – to ensure that all people have the
right to live outside of fear. Whether this is a practical will
is irrelevant. It is a global, general will.

To say that there is no longer any hope of

determining a general will among a population as large as
the United States is no longer accurate. We have seen time
and time again that the people of the United States, and of
the world, can and will unite, not only in times of crisis but
in instances of understanding and empathy in our daily lives.
With the ability to travel on a whim, book flights, find a
place to stay on websites like Airbnb, and reach virtually any
destination in mere hours, we can no longer say that people
do not have the ability to experience the lives of others. This
is true also of social media, which gives us access to virtual
illustrations of the stories and experiences that have shaped
people’s lives and their individual wills. These stories, in
turn, shape us. We are no longer able to passively remain
within our own sects of society, ignoring the lives or
perspectives of those around us. Instead, technology has
reduced the public and the world’s acceptance of intolerance
and ignorance. People are held to much higher standards
than ever before in terms of education, compassion, open-
mindedness, and compromise.

43
 As the world has progressed in its use and
sophistication of technology, unity, on a global scale, is now
an achievable end, as technology connect individuals
nationally and globally who have previously lived in relative
solitude. In The Social Contract, Rousseau points to large
populations as the downfall of an otherwise perfect system
of government, direct democracy, because he believes that
unity, or the consensus of a general will, cannot be achieved
in large populations. He asserts that direct democracy is
only possible in states with small, homogenous populations
and that direct democracy would be impracticable and would
become rather a representative, or electoral democracy
because of a State’s inability to cope with a large body of
diverse individuals. A nation such as the United States, then,
would be incapable of functioning under a direct democracy,
according to Rousseau, simply because its population is too
large to achieve unity. Because of technology, however, and
the connectedness that it has created among people of the
United States and worldwide, Rousseau’s main point of
concern – that the general will cannot be determined within
a large population – is no longer valid.

44
 Works Cited

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, and Trans. G. D. H. Cole. 2008.

The Social Contract. New York: Cosimo Classics.

45