Social Contract Theory

The social contract theory is not only the most ancient but also the most famous of the
theories regarding the origin of the state.

The Origin of the State

Political thinkers have attempted to explain the origin of the state in various ways. When,
where and how the state came into existence have not been recorded anywhere in history.
Therefore, the political thinkers were compelled to adopt various hypotheses, many of which
are now discredited in the light of modern knowledge. Among the many theories which are
concerned with the origin of the state the following are explained in this chapter.

1. The Theory of Divine origin

2. Social Contract Theory.

3. Matriarchal and Patriarchal Theory.

4. Force Theory.

5. Evolutionary Theory.

SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

The social contract theory is not only the most ancient but also the most famous of the
theories regarding the origin of the state. The substance of this theory is that state is the result
of an agreement entered into by men who originally had no governmental organisation. In the
first period there was no government and no law. The people lived in a state of nature. After
some time they decided to set up a state. That they did by means of a contract.

The social contract theory described the original condition of men as the 'state of nature'. To
escape from the condition of the state of nature man made a social contract. To some writers
the contract was pre-social and to others it was pre-political.

Writers on this theory are agreed on the point that the state of nature preceded the
establishment of government there was no organised life in the state of nature. Each lived
according to his own wish and fancies. No man made laws were there to control man. The
law known to men living in the state of nature was the law of nature or natural law. There
was none to interpret the law or adjudicate. Hence men lived under uncertain conditions.

When men felt the need to escape from this type of life he did so by common agreement or
contract. As a result of this, a civil society was created. Thus creation of civil society
preceded the emergence of the state.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the supporters of the social contract theory
multiplied and there was more or less universal acceptance of the doctrine. Hooker was the
first scientific writer who gave a logical exposition of the theory of social contract. The
theory found real support in the writings of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacques
Rousseau who are known as contractualists.

Comparison of Social Contract Theories of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau

1. The State of Nature:

Principal works Leviathan (1651): Man egoistic moved by fear, power glory political
equality of all no question of right or wrong. Just or unjust war of all against all, life, nasty,
brutish and short.

Civil government (1690): A state of good will, mutual existence and preservation state of
peace not war governed by law of nature but state became necessary to have one standardized
interpretation of law of nature.

Social contract (1762): Men in state of nature equal self sufficient and contended, lived life
of idyllic, happiness man actuated (operated) by impulse and not reason, origin of property
creates in-equality necessity of state.

2. Law of nature:

Principal works Leviathan (1651): In state of nature there was no civil law, law of nature
was regulative of human action, law of nature conceived differently by Hobbes to mean
different things on different occasions i.e.(a) it was dicate of right reason for preservation of
life. (b) It was based on prudence which dictated that everybody should try to secure peace
by sacrificing natural right by convenants and it must be respected.
Civil government (1690): Law of nature does not represent natural impulse but a moral law
based upon reason to regulate human conduct.

Social contract (1762): Law of nature based on instinct sociability resulting from feeling and
not from reason.

3. Natural Right:

Principal works Leviathan (1651): Natural right depends upon ones

Civil government (1690): Right inherent in man by nature; natural rights of man are to life,
liberty and property.

Social contract (1762): Man is free in the state of nature and enjoys all rights incidental to
his person.

4. Social Contract

Principal works Leviathan (1651) : The individual gives up all his rights expect on i.e. right
of defence and self preservation to a common sovereign, social contract creates a common
wealth and a sovereign (one, few, or many) contract unilateral and not binding on sovereign.

Civil government (1690): Men enter into social contract that is create a state to have a
common agency for interpretation and execution of the law of nature. Individuals surrender
some but not all the rights. Not clear whether locke an contract creates civil society or only
government. Government limited in authority and not absolute.

Social contract (1762): State results from a contract between individuals in their personal
capacity and individuals in their corporate capacity. A, B, C and D etc. in their individual
capacity surrender all rights to A+B+C+D etc as a corporate whole.

5. Sovereignty

Principal works Leviathan (1651): Hobbesian sovereignty is unlimited, indivisible,

Civil government (1690): Locke does not conceive of a sovereign state. His government is
limited to performance of its duties. The inherent right of man to life, liberty and property,
represents a limitation on government. Locke conceives of popular and not le-gal
sovereignty.

Social contract (1762): The corporate whole that is people as a whole are sovereign. Thus
Rousseau believes in popular sovereignty. People are the legal sovereign. Sovereignty resides
in the 'general will ‘of the people. The characteristics of this sovereignty are its unity,
individuality, permanencies, in alienability and its absolute and unrepresentable character.
The government is dependent on the sovereign of the people. Rousseau distinguishes between
the sovereign state and subordinate government.

6. Liberty:

In the state of nature liberty depends upon the state and is guaranteed by the state. It is a gift
of the state and can be abrogated by the state. It cannot be quoted against the authority of the
state.

A man has certain rights inherent in him i.e. rights to life, liberty and property which the state
can-not deprive him of

In the civil state individual liberty is a gift of the sovereign state. It must be reconciled with
the absolute authority of the state and cannot be quoted against the same.

7. Individual and the state:

Principal works Leviathan (1651): The Hobbesian individual owes everything i.e. rights
peace and law to the state and is there-fore best in the state. He must obey the sovereign and
pay taxes. Individual has some kind of liberty even in the civil state i.e.

(a) Liberty not to kill himself if asked to do so by the sovereign.

Rousseau compared with Hobbes and Locke

Rousseau had drawn something from Hobbes and something from Locke. In fact he began
with the method of Locke and ended with those of Hobbes. Both Rousseau and Locke agreed
that man in the state of nature was free and happy. Formation of civil society by means of a
contract was deemed the only way out. Both Locke and Rousseau made the distinction
between the state and government though Rousseau maintained that the institution of
government was not the results of contract. Both believed that the contract did not remove the
supreme power from the people. Rousseau's voice is the voice of Locke but the hands are
those of Hobbes.

Evaluation of Social Contract Theory

The social contract theory as expounded by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau does not explain
the origin of the state. There is no evidence to support this theory. The contention of these
philosophers is not borne out by facts. What was contributed by Hobbes to political
philosophy was absolutism. Locke gave recognition to the concept of limited government.
Rousseau popularised the idea of popular sovereignty.

Theory of Social Contract

Criticism

The doctrine that the state originated in a contract was a favourite home of political
speculation during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Historically the theory is a mere fiction. There is nothing in the whole range of history to
show that the state has ever been deliberately created as a result of voluntary agreement.
Primitive man did not posses that maturity of outlook which the making of social contract
presupposes.

The social contract theory is unhistorical. It is merely a fiction.

The social contract theory is also attacked on legal grounds. It is contended that a legally
sound contract implies the prior existence of some authority and its sanction before the
contract implies the contract is entered into. In the case of social contract theory there was
neither the authority nor the sanction before the contract was concluded. The social contract
theory is also criticised on philosophical grounds. The social contract theory is criticised as
bad history, bad law and bad philosophy. It is bad philosophy, because it looks upon the state
as an artificial contrivance and not a natural process of growth.