Theory of Origin of State- Social Contract Theory

Hello friends,
In this lecture we are going to discuss the Social Contract theory, of the origin
of the state. In our last lecture we discussed the Divine theory of origin of the
state. Social contract theory is next to that in chronological order. Let`s find out
the concept of this Social contract theory.

Social Contract Theory

For three centuries, the social contract theory of the origin of the state,
dominated the sky of political thought.In the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries in
Europe, a contractual trinity, overthrew the divine theory and replaced it with
the theory of the social contract. It was the trinity of Hobbes, Locke and
Rousseau.They said that the state isnot a divine institution. It was not created by
god, but by humans. Humanscreated the state by contracting among themselves.
The state is the result of a humanitarian agreement.

Hobbes, Locke andRousseau differed in their views on social contract. All three
had different perspectives. The interpretation of all three was different.But all
three believed that the origin of the state,‘in pre-historical times’, was as a
result of mutual agreement between humans. All three have depicted a natural
state in their own way and have believed that the condition before the origin of
the state was a ‘natural state’.In this natural state, humans said to each other,
"Why don't we form a state and live together, for a better life?" Agreement was
reached, the state was formed. In this way the contract theory of the origin of
the state, was formulated.”
In fact, the divine origin of the state meant that, the control of the state was
being exercised by an invisible power. This belief seemed illogical in the
scientific age because if the state were ‘created’ and ‘operated’ by divine power,
it would be outside man's interpretation. Mancanneither criticize nor improve
‘State`s’ work. God's will be not subject to ‘human will’. Therefore, if man
wants to interfere in the work of the state, then it is necessary that he proves the
state to be a ‘human institution’.This desire also has consequences.

But Hobbes, Locke and the Rousseau donot begin this theory. When we turn the
pages of the history of ‘political philosophy’, we will find that this theory is
mentioned in many places, somewhere ‘clearly’ or ‘vaguely’.

So lets turn the pages of history …..

What is the History of social contract theory
In ancientIndian political literature, the originof the state‘through the
contract’,ismentioned in many places. At one place in the ‘Shantiparva’ of
‘Mahabharata’, it is written that human beings were fed up with the wild state of
'Matsya Nyaya', so they compromised among themselves and appointed Manu
as the ruler. In his famous book of ancient indian politics, Prof. Altekar writes
that social contracts are also described in Buddhist and Jain literature.
In addition to these, Kautilya has also said at a place in Arthashastra that they
contracted among themselves to avoid the state of the forest and thus the state
was born.”

This theory was also existed in ancientGreece.It is only mentioned in Plato's

works. ‘Glakon’ in the republic, vividly portrays the social contract, described
by the ‘sophists’ of that era. Although the sophists did not explain this theory in
detail, there is a clear mention of social ‘contractiv-ism’ in their views. But
bothPlato and Aristotle were opposed to this theory.

After Aristotle, Greek philosophy went from dividing into stoicism and
epicureanism.The epicureans similar to the sophists, they said that the ‘basis’ of
‘society and the state’ is the ‘mutual agreement’ between man and them.After
this,Cicero of Rome came, though he was influenced by Plato and Aristotle,his
thinking placed special emphasis on thehuman basis of the state.
Theclear mention of 'natural law'in the roman era was made even more
maturebyItalian thinkers in the middle age. It is noteworthy that the social
contract theory of the modern era developed on this natural method.

In the middle age, Menegold gave the first clear explanation of this theory.He
said, 'If the king breaches the agreement, according to which he was elected
king, He frees the masses from the burden of obedience.'

This was followed by the social contract theory. Then it was strongly
propounded by Hobbes and Locke inEngland and by Rousseau in France.Their
works spread like a storm in Europe. They became famous from one continent
to another. Even the Makers of the U.S. constitution were greatly influenced by
this principle.

What is social contract theory?

This theory holds that the state originated by humans, not by God.The state is a
humanized institution. It hasbeen created by humans together by a contract. In
the words of dr.Ashirvadam- "This contract was made by primitive humans, at a
time when they were crossing the natural condition. This theory holds that, there
was an era in human history when the state or political law did not exist. In this
natural state, the relationship between human beings wasaccording to ‘natural
laws’.In that state, the people made a contract among themselves and created
the state.”

But the question arises,-

Why did humans make contract?
What was their problem in the natural state?
What was this natural state like?
What are the reasons?
Why people were attracted towards contract?
What was the nature of the contract?

Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau have responded differently to all these things.

In order to properly understand the questions of social contract, we need to

understand two things properly.
1. Nature of natural state
2. Nature of social contract

Nature of natural state

The state of society, before theorigin of the state is called the natural state.
Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau describe this natural state differently.

Hobbs said that the natural condition was very bad, people used to fight among
themselves.The ‘assault’ and ‘looting’ were just the only things that ‘went on’.
It was not possible to live in natural state.That was the only rule.People were
selfish, greedy and quarrelsome. InHobbes' words, "man's life was lonely, weak,
animal-like and transient in the natural state." The goal of every person was to
kill ‘whom you could kill’, and take ‘what you could’. Hobbes wrote in his
famous book ‘Leviathan’, that "every human being was an enemy of one
another.Man did not even recognize good and evil.He did not understand justice
and injustice. In those days, ‘brute power’ was the law.‘Power’ and ‘fraud’ were
the main characteristics. '

Locke didn't believe so. He did not believethat the natural state was bad or that
people were quarrelsome and selfish. According to him,people were good.They
lived in harmony and love among themselves.They cooperated with each other.
It was a beautiful and healthy society.Lock writes, "the natural state is not a life
of hate, inferiority, rape or mutual destruction of someone, but a life of
happiness, peace, mutual cooperation and defense." Because, in Locke's words
“There was also some natural laws in the natural state, according to which
everyone had to live.There was‘logic’ that was considered as ‘law’. Whotaught
everyone and worked as a ‘guide’.Since everyone was free and equal in this
direction, no one could ‘harm’ anyone. No one could ‘kill’ anyone, no one
could take away anyone's ‘freedom or property’. It was a good and healthy
natural state.”

According to Hobbes, the natural state was very bad.

According to Lockthe natural state wasVery good

BUT….

What about according to Rousseau?

Rousseau has divided the natural state into two parts. He said that at
firstpeoplelived well. They were wild, but they were civilized.There were no
chances of looting them.They didn't know how to ‘cheat’.It was a golden age.
But one day ‘property’ entered in their life. After this,their nature changed. The
feelings of 'mine' and 'yours' came into their lives. They started fighting among
themselves. Their golden age was destroyed. The law of the forest began to
run.People became sad.Thus, the‘first part’ of the natural state described by
Rousseau was similar to‘Locke's natural state’ and the ‘second part’ was similar
to ‘Hobbes's natural state’.

Nature of social contract/ nature of contract

Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, all believe that the state originated as a result of
a‘contract’. But there are differences among the three, on what the contract
was and what was the nature of the contract.

Hobbs said that in the natural state, people used to fight among themselves.
They were troubled by life. They thought of making a contractamong
themselves, so that life could be ‘safe’. So, all the people made a
contracttogether. They all said, "why not choose one of us as a ‘king’ and all of
us ‘obey’ him?" according to Hobbes, individuals entered into a contract and
said to each other, 'I,myself,have the power to govern ‘this person’ or ‘group of
people’. I give the right with the conditions that you too give up your rights and
give him all the powers in this way.’ Thus,the people came to a contractamong
themselves and the state was born. One person became king. All the people
obeyed him.

Locke's approach was different. He said thenatural condition was good. People
lived with‘affection’ and ‘love’.But therewere no clear rules or regulations in
the society, due to which many types of disputes arises and many types of
problems came up. To resolve these disputes and problems, it is necessary, that
some good rules should be made in the society andeveryone should follow
them. So, all the people made a contract together,they chose one of them as
a‘king’ and said to him, 'Make rules and rule over us.'but remember that,if you
do something ‘contrary’ to our interest, we will ‘expel’ you from the
government.”Thus, the contract resulted in the emergence of the state. A man
became king, people accepted to obey him. At the same time, that king also
promised to work in the interest of thepeople. It was not a ‘one-party
agreement’. The peoplepromised to ‘obey’ and the king promised ‘good
governance’. Therefore, the people were not obliged to obey every command of
the king.The final power remained in the hands of the people.

And what did Rousseau say? Rousseau described the natural state, saying that at
first, people were good. The property later spoilsthe society. Wild law began to
run. People became sad and made a compromise among themselves.
In Rousseau's words, "They said among themselves to establish a society that
‘with all the strength of society’, can protect the ‘property’ and ‘life’ of every
member of society, and in which each person, when united with others, obeys
his own command and remains independent."
With this feeling, they contracted with each other. According to
theagreement,all the individuals handed over all their rights to the society
without any condition.The state was born, but the ultimate power of the state,
that is, sovereignty, remained in the people. In this regard,Rousseau's agreement
is similar to Locke's agreement. Because the ultimate power in both, remained
in the people. Butin his agreementRousseau also did one thing similar to
Hobbes. He said that now the society will also make the laws, it will have to be
followed by everyone.In short, like Locke, ‘Rousseau’ gave the final power to
the ‘masses’ after the origin of the state, and like Hobbes, he also made the state
‘autocratic’.

Thus Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau`s opinion in detail was that the state
originated after a social contract.It was because of this contract that the natural
state ended and the state emerged. ‘State’ isthe result of the contract, so in
accordance with this contractwe must obey the state.

Criticism of social contract theory

On many grounds, various scholars have criticized the social contracttheory.The

main among them are as follows:

1. Misrepresentation of history
Social compromise theory divides human history into two eras. One is the era
before the origin of the stateand the era after the origin of a state. But human
history cannot be divided into two eras in this way. Nowhere in history are the
two eras confirmed.

2. Theory based on pure imagination

Although this theory seems to be very historical. But in reality, it is a purely
hypothetical theory. History does not confirm any contract that all the people of
any society have entered into a contract with each other, resulting in the
emergence of the state. If there was such an agreement anywhere, it would have
been mentioned somewhere in the pages of history. Of course, in many states,
there is a description of some agreements between the people or between the
people and the king. But all these agreements have taken place after the
formation of the state, not before. For example, in 1620, there was an agreement
called a flower compact. This year, passengers had reached an agreement with
each other on a ship 'May flower' going from England to America. The
agreement read: "we, in the presence of god and each other, contract that we
shall remain politically united for our good order and security. Similarly, in
1632, there was a provision agreement.
Many more such agreements can be mentioned. But these agreements were
made after the origin of the state, not in any natural state. There is no mention of
any compromise of the natural state in history.

3. How all human beings suddenly became wiser

This theory is illogical and anti-self-contradictory. Hobbes and Rousseau
described the natural state before the agreement, saying that the individuals
were quarrelsome, selfish, and wild. They were terrified of the jungle's law and
one day they reached a compromise among themselves. It can be asked that
when human beings were quarrelsome, selfish and jealous by nature, then where
did they suddenly realize that we had compromised and lived in love? How did
those who were selfish, fighting among themselves, who had created a state of
fishery justice suddenly become so wise that they thought that a compromise
should be made now? To imagine such a contract is totally illogical
andcontradictory.

4. Whyis it happening now?

Utilitarianthinkers in the modern era have sharply criticized social compromise
theory. They said that even if it is assumed that in ancient times somepeople
must have made a mistake in the past, the state would have been formed as a
result of that, But the question arises as to why should people now be bound by
the contracts made by their former brothers/forefathers. It is clear that if
individuals now live in the state and obey the state, the reason for this will be
something else, not contract. Bentham said, "it is important for me to obey,Not
because my grandfather made an agreement with emperor George III, but
because the rebellion against the stateis more than profitable. "
 5. This principle does not differentiate between state and governance.

If the theory ofHobbes, Locke and Rousseau is studied closely, we will find that
this theory does not describe the origin of the state, but about the origin of the
Governance.
All three say that all the people gave birth to the ruler by working together and
contracting. The ruler of Hobbes is king and he is absolutely autocratic. Locke's
ruler is also king, but he is not autocratic. The ruler of Rousseau is a
‘democracy based on common will’ and he is autocratic. But the principle of
contract of all three gives rise to governance, not to the state. Whereas there is a
difference between state and governance.

6. Ignoring scientific facts

This theory ignores scientific facts regarding man's nature and his needs. The
state isthe fulfillment of the natural needs of the individual. It has not been built,
it has developed. Man is a social animal by nature. Sociality is his nature.
Humans did not have to make any compromise for the state. This is not an
agreement. It is a developed institution. Edmund burke rightly wrote, "the state
should not equate to an agreement on the share of pepper, coffee, clothing,
tobacco, or any other such substandard business, which was done for temporary
selfishness and dissolved when either side so desired."

Importance of social compromise theory

Although this theory is wrong and no scholar in the world now supports this
theory.
Nevertheless, this theory eliminated many of the misconceptions prevalent in
the society. It said that the state is humane, not divine. Being human, its current
systems can be improved and changed. According to the contract of Locke
and the Rousseau, a rebellion can also be carried out against the autocratic state.
This principle also paved the way for democracy in place of monarchy.