GENERAL WILL
Introduction
Rousseau, the celebrated French philosopher of the 18th
century says that they individual lived quite happily in the
state of nature before the emergence of the state as a
political institution but with the advent of the concept of
private property the life of the individual became miserable.
Therefore the people entered into a social contract and the
state was formed. In that newly formed Institution of the
state the Supreme Power was given to the general will.
The concept of General Will
The "general will" is a central concept in the political
philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, particularly in his
work The Social Contract (1762). It refers to the collective
will of the people as a whole, as opposed to individual
desires or the will of a particular group. According to
Rousseau, the general will represents the common good or
the public interest, which aims to promote the welfare of
society as a whole.
In Rousseau's vision, true freedom is achieved when
individuals follow the general will, as it represents their
collective rationality and moral purpose. By participating in
the creation of the general will through democratic decision-
making, people simultaneously gain personal freedom and
contribute to the common good.
The Real and the Actual will
Rousseau has divided the individual will into two parts-
The actual will was selfish, personally motivated, self
oriented, irrational and thought of the good of the individual
alone. It has no concern with the welfare of the society.
The real will is something higher ,nobler and supreme. It
wishes the good of all and aims at the common good. The
general will is the synthesis of all the real wills. It is the voice
of all for the good of all. It was more social than Anti Social,
more collective than individualistic and permanent than
transitory.
General will and the will of all
Rousseau has also distinguish between the general will and
will of all-
General will is not the sum total of the wills of all. It is
created when all unanimously agree on a point. Will of all
may not be the general will. It may become identical with
that if all are willing to agree to the common good. General
will considered about the good of the community as a whole
whereas the will of all was only majority will and considered
about the welfare of a few only. The general will is the
synthesis of real wills irrespective of the fact whether those
real Wills are those of many or few or of one single
individual.
Characteristics of General Will
the key characteristics of the general will:
1. Collective Will: The general will represents the collective
interest of the people as a whole, not the sum of individual
wills. It aims for the common good and transcends personal
interests.
2. Inalienable and Indivisible: According to Rousseau, the
general will cannot be alienated or divided. It is a single,
unified will that represents the interests of the entire
society.
3. Moral and Rational: The general will is inherently moral
and rational. It reflects what is best for society, even if
individuals do not immediately recognize it. It aligns with
the common good rather than individual desires.
4. The Sovereign: The general will is the foundation of
sovereignty. In Rousseau's view, true sovereignty lies with
the people, and it is expressed through the general will. The
sovereign is not a ruler but the collective body of citizens.
5. Democratic Basis: Rousseau argued that the general will
can only be accurately expressed in a direct democracy
where citizens participate in decision-making processes.
This ensures that laws reflect the will of the people as a
whole.
6. Voluntary and Free: People are free when they act
according to the general will because it is the expression of
their collective, rational self-interest. It is not coercive
because individuals willingly submit to it, recognizing that
it serves the common good.
7. Not Simply the Majority: The general will is distinct from
the will of the majority. The majority's opinion may not
always represent the general will, especially if it contradicts
the common good or moral principles.
8. Dynamic and Evolving: The general will is not static; it
evolves as the needs and values of society change. It
reflects the collective needs and desires at any given
moment, adapting to the circumstances of the time.
9. Basis of Political Authority: The general will serves as the
foundation for legitimate political authority. For Rousseau,
laws and governance should be based on the general will,
which is the expression of the collective power of the
people. Those in power are only legitimate if they align
with the general will.
10. Freedom and Obedience: Rousseau famously said,
"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." He
argued that true freedom is found in obeying the general
will, as it is the expression of one’s moral and collective
self-interest. Obedience to the general will is seen not as
coercion, but as an expression of true freedom and moral
autonomy.
11. Conflict Between Private Will and General Will:
Rousseau acknowledged that individuals often act
according to their private will, which may conflict with the
general will. However, for Rousseau, individuals must
subordinate their private interests to the general will in
order to maintain the social contract and promote the
common good.
12. The Role of the Lawgiver: In The Social Contract,
Rousseau suggests the need for a "lawgiver" who is a wise
and virtuous individual or group who can help guide
society to recognize and express the general will. This
figure is not a ruler or dictator, but a moral guide who aids
in shaping laws and institutions to reflect the collective
will.
13. No Room for Factions: Rousseau’s general will
rejects the idea of factions, parties, or special interest
groups because they represent narrow, selfish interests that
conflict with the common good. The general will can only
exist if people focus on what is best for everyone, not for a
particular group.
14. Universal and Impersonal: The general will is
universal in that it applies to everyone in society equally. It
is impersonal, meaning it is not based on the preferences or
desires of any particular individual but rather what is best
for the entire community.
15. Political Legitimacy and Consent: Rousseau’s
concept of the general will implies that political legitimacy
arises from the consent of the governed. This consent is not
given to a specific ruler or leader, but rather to the
collective will of the people. As such, the social contract is
an agreement to live under the laws created by the general
will.
16. The General Will and Civil Religion: Rousseau
discussed the idea of civil religion as an institution that
could unite citizens under a shared set of moral beliefs
aligned with the general will. This concept, while not a
traditional religious system, is meant to ensure social
cohesion and commitment to the common good.
17. Freedom through Participation: Rousseau argued
that true freedom comes not from being free of all
constraints but from actively participating in the formation
of the general will. Citizens are free when they have a say
in the collective decisions that affect them, which
strengthens their sense of belonging and responsibility to
the community.
18. Disagreement and the Common Good: When
citizens disagree on what constitutes the general will,
Rousseau argued that it is the task of the people, through
deliberation and rational debate, to come to a consensus.
The goal is to achieve a decision that truly serves the
common good, even if it requires individuals to sacrifice
personal preferences.
19. Ethical Duty of Citizens: Rousseau emphasized that
individuals have an ethical duty to participate in the
political process and help form the general will. Failure to
do so, or acting in a way that undermines the common
good, is seen as a violation of the social contract.
20. Always correct: general will is always based on logic,
intellect, morality, truth and feeling to do good to all
people. Thus, the general will is always the the most just
and the voice of the people is in infact, the voice of God.
The general will in Rousseau's thought is a complex and deeply
moral concept that emphasizes the collective good over
individual desires, participation, and the active role of citizens in
shaping society. It is essential to creating a just, free, and
egalitarian political system.
Criticisms of general will
Rousseau's concept of the general will has been a subject of
significant critique over the years. Here are some of the main
criticisms:
1. Ambiguity of the General Will:
• Lack of Clear Definition: One of the primary criticisms
is that the general will is often ambiguous and difficult
to define. It is unclear how exactly the general will is to
be identified or how it can be distinguished from the will
of the majority or individual interests. Critics argue that
this vagueness makes the concept impractical in real-
world political systems.
• Subjectivity: There is ambiguity over whether the
general will represents the true collective interest or just
the will of those in power at the time. It is challenging to
define what constitutes the "common good" in a diverse
society with conflicting interests.
2. Suppression of Individual Rights:
• Tyranny of the Majority: Critics argue that the general
will could easily lead to the "tyranny of the majority."
Rousseau's concept does not fully account for the
protection of minority rights, and in practice, the
majority could impose their will on a minority, violating
individual freedoms. The concept assumes that what is
good for the majority is also good for the minority, which
may not always be true.
• Coercion and Loss of Individual Freedom: Rousseau’s
idea of aligning individual will with the general will could
lead to individuals being forced to act against their own
interests in the name of the common good. Critics
argue that this could justify coercion, undermining
personal freedom.
3. Practical Implementation Issues:
• Direct Democracy vs. Representative Democracy:
Rousseau advocated for direct democracy, where all
citizens would actively participate in decision-making.
However, in large, modern societies, this is impractical.
Representative democracy, where elected officials
make decisions on behalf of citizens, seems more
feasible but contradicts Rousseau’s ideal. The
challenge of reconciling these two models has led to
criticism of his vision as unrealistic.
• Implementation of the General Will: Rousseau
assumes that if people act in accordance with the
general will, they will automatically be acting in the
common good. However, determining the general will in
practice, especially in large, diverse populations, is
problematic. In modern political systems, it is difficult
to achieve the consensus required to identify the true
general will.
4. Totalitarian Tendencies:
• Centralization of Power: The general will, in
Rousseau’s framework, is often associated with
centralized political power that imposes conformity to
the common good. Critics argue that this can pave the
way for authoritarian rule. The idea that the state has
the power to enforce the general will could easily lead
to the concentration of power in the hands of a few,
undermining democratic freedoms.
• Role of the Lawgiver: Rousseau’s notion of a "lawgiver"
who shapes the general will can lead to an authoritarian
figure who, despite not being a ruler, could impose his
or her interpretation of the general will. This has been
seen as a potential justification for dictatorial
governance in some interpretations of Rousseau's
ideas.
5. Overemphasis on Homogeneity:
• Uniformity and Conformity: The idea of the general will
is based on the assumption that a society can form a
unified will for the common good. However, in a
pluralistic society with diverse cultures, beliefs, and
interests, forcing everyone to adhere to a single notion
of the general will can suppress diversity and individual
expression. Critics argue that Rousseau's emphasis on
homogeneity could lead to social and cultural
oppression.
6. Human Nature and Rationality:
• Over-Reliance on Rationality: Rousseau's theory
assumes that individuals will act in a rational and moral
way when participating in the formation of the general
will. Critics, especially those from the pragmatic or
psychological schools of thought, argue that people
often act irrationally, driven by emotion, self-interest, or
ignorance, which undermines the idea that they can be
expected to always make decisions that are in line with
the general will.
• Idealization of Human Behavior: Rousseau's theory is
criticized for being too idealistic, assuming that citizens
will always act in good faith and in pursuit of the
common good, which is not always the case in practice.
7. Potential for Manipulation:
• Elitism and Political Manipulation: The idea of a
"lawgiver" or enlightened rulers determining the general
will can open the door for elites to manipulate or
impose their own vision of the common good on the
public. Critics argue that the general will could be used
as a pretext for justifying policies that serve the
interests of a small elite while claiming to be in the
interest of the whole society.
8. Confusion Between General Will and Aggregate Will:
• Difference from Majority Opinion: Rousseau
distinguishes the general will from the will of the
majority, but critics argue that in practice, it can be
difficult to separate the two. The general will is meant to
reflect the common good, but in reality, it may be hard
to distinguish between what is truly good for society and
what the majority merely wants at any given time.
9. Lack of Mechanism for Disagreement:
• Suppression of Dissent: Rousseau’s theory assumes a
society in which all individuals act in harmony with the
general will, leaving little room for dissent or
disagreement. Critics point out that modern democratic
societies require mechanisms to handle disagreement
and opposition, which Rousseau’s framework seems to
suppress in favor of social conformity.
10. Ethical Dilemmas of Enforcement:
• Punishment for Non-compliance: Rousseau’s idea
suggests that those who do not align with the general
will should be "forced to be free," which implies a
coercive element in his social contract. Critics question
whether it is ethical to force individuals to act in
accordance with the general will, even if it contradicts
their personal preferences or beliefs.
While Rousseau’s concept of the general will has influenced
democratic theory, it has faced many criticisms for being vague,
potentially authoritarian, and impractical in contemporary
society. The challenges of balancing the general will with
individual rights and freedoms continue to be a topic of debate
in political philosophy.
Conclusion
While Rousseau's general will offers an idealistic framework for
collective governance based on the common good, its practical
implementation and ethical implications remain contentious. It
serves as an important concept in political theory, highlighting
the tension between individual autonomy and the demands of
collective society, but its real-world application presents
complex challenges that continue to provoke philosophical
discussions.
