Jean-Jacques Rousseau, an influential 18th-century philosopher, is best known for his ideas

on the "general will." His views on this concept are central to his political philosophy and are
discussed extensively in his work, The Social Contract, published in 1762. Rousseau’s
concept of the general will is complex, but at its core, it refers to the collective will of the
people aimed at the common good. Let’s break down this idea and understand it in a more
digestible manner.

The Social Contract and Rousseau's Philosophy

Rousseau begins The Social Contract by stating that "Man is born free, and everywhere he
is in chains." What he means is that people are born with natural freedom, but society and its
institutions (like governments, laws, and norms) place restrictions on that freedom.
Rousseau sees this as a problem, one that can be resolved by forming a new kind of political
order that reflects the true will of the people, which he calls the general will.

The social contract, according to Rousseau, is an agreement where individuals come

Defining the General Will

The general will, for Rousseau, is the collective will of the people aimed at the common
good. It is not the sum of individual wills or a simple majority of preferences. Instead, the
general will represents what is best for the society as a whole, even if it contradicts the
desires of individual members or a majority of people in certain situations.

One of the key points to understand about the general will is that it is always aimed at the
common good. While an individual might have personal desires that do not align with what is
best for the community, the general will ensures that decisions are made in the best interest
of everyone, aiming to benefit the entire society.

Rousseau suggests that true freedom comes not from pursuing one's individual interests but
from participating in the formation of the general will. In other words, true freedom is being
governed by laws that you have a part in creating, which represent the collective interest of
the society rather than personal or selfish desires.

The Will of All vs. the General Will

A critical distinction Rousseau makes is between the "will of all" and the "general will." The
"will of all" refers to the sum of all individual preferences, which may sometimes conflict. The
general will, on the other hand, is not the aggregation of these individual preferences but
rather what is best for the whole community, even if it means that some individuals must
sacrifice their own desires for the greater good.
For example, if a majority of people in a society want to raise taxes to fund a particular
project that benefits a small group of people, this would reflect the "will of all" (since it is the
collective desire of the people). However, if raising those taxes harms the general welfare of
society, the general will would be against it, even if it conflicts with what the majority wants.

The general will, thus, is not always the same as what the majority decides in a democratic
vote. Rousseau warns that democracy, if it simply reflects the will of the majority, can lead to
the oppression of minorities or the pursuit of selfish interests. The general will, in contrast,
aims to transcend individual or group interests, focusing on what is truly best for the society
as a whole.

The Role of the Sovereign

For Rousseau, the sovereign is the body that represents the general will. In a true
democracy, this sovereign is not a single ruler, but the collective body of citizens. It is
through the sovereign that the general will is expressed and enacted.

The sovereign’s primary responsibility is to ensure that the laws and decisions made reflect
the general will, which always aims at the common good. Because the general will is based
on what is best for everyone, the sovereign is not supposed to make decisions based on the
desires of a particular group or individual but rather on the needs of the community as a
whole.

Rousseau emphasizes that the sovereign cannot make laws that contradict the general will.
In his view, individuals have a duty to obey the general will because it represents their true
freedom and equality. Obeying the general will is a form of self-governance, as it reflects the
shared interests and goals of society.

The Role of the People in the General Will

While the sovereign enacts the laws, it is ultimately the people who form the general will.
Rousseau believes that in a truly free society, every citizen must have a direct role in the
creation of laws. This means that the ideal form of government, in his view, would not be a
representative democracy (where elected officials make decisions on behalf of the people)
but a form of direct democracy, where the citizens themselves participate in decision-making
processes.

For Rousseau, the idea of the general will is tied to the idea of civic participation. He argues
that only by actively engaging in the democratic process can individuals ensure that the
decisions being made reflect the common good. It is through participation that people
develop a sense of solidarity and shared purpose, which Rousseau sees as essential for a
cohesive society.

The General Will and Freedom

A common question that arises when discussing Rousseau’s idea of the general will is how it
relates to individual freedom. Rousseau argues that the general will actually promotes true
freedom, but in a way that may seem counterintuitive. On the surface, it may appear that the
general will restricts individual freedom by requiring people to obey laws that they may not
personally agree with. However, Rousseau’s view of freedom is different from the common
understanding.

In his view, true freedom is not the ability to do whatever one wants. Instead, it is the
freedom to live in a society where laws reflect the collective interests of all, and where
individuals contribute to the creation of those laws. In this sense, individuals are free when
they are governed by the general will, because it is in their best interest and represents the
common good.

Rousseau also believes that individuals who act contrary to the general will are not truly free.
For instance, if someone pursues selfish interests at the expense of the community, they are
not exercising true freedom because they are disregarding the well-being of others.
According to Rousseau, the general will creates a framework where individuals can find true
freedom in cooperation and shared decision-making.

Criticisms of the General Will

Rousseau’s concept of the general will has faced several criticisms over time. One of the
main criticisms is that it can justify authoritarianism. Since the general will is supposed to
reflect what is best for the whole community, some argue that it could be used by rulers or
leaders to justify policies that suppress individual rights in the name of the common good.
Critics have questioned whether any authority can truly know the general will or whether the
general will can be easily manipulated.

Moreover, the idea of direct participation in government that Rousseau promotes may be
unrealistic in modern, large societies. Rousseau’s model assumes that all citizens can
participate directly in the creation of laws, which is difficult to achieve in the complex and
diverse societies of today.

Conclusion

Rousseau’s concept of the general will remains one of the most influential ideas in political
philosophy. It challenges traditional notions of freedom and democracy by suggesting that
true freedom lies in participating in the collective will of the people, rather than pursuing
individual desires. While his idea of the general will is compelling, it also raises important
questions about the nature of democracy, the role of the state, and the protection of
individual rights. Despite its criticisms, Rousseau’s vision of a society governed by the
general will continues to inspire debates about the balance between individual freedom and
the common good.