Rousseau's General Will Explained: Sovereignty, Democracy, and the Common Good

The concept of the general will (volonté générale) is one of the most famous and most controversial in the history of political thought. Developed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his Social Contract (1762), the general will was intended to provide the foundation for a new kind of democratic politics, in which the people would govern themselves in accordance with the common good. This article examines the definition of the general will, its relationship to popular sovereignty, and the debates about its proper interpretation.

The Definition

The general will, for Rousseau, is the will of the citizenry as a whole directed at the common good. It is distinct from the “will of all” (volonté de tous), which is the sum of the private interests of the individuals.

Rousseau’s definition has three important elements.

The first element is that the general will is the will of the citizenry as a whole. The general will is not the will of any particular individual or group; it is the will of the collective body, of the people considered as a whole. The general will is, in this sense, a property of the political community, not of any individual member.

The second element is that the general will is directed at the common good. The general will is not the same as the will of any particular individual or group, but the will of the citizenry as a whole directed at what is good for the community. The general will is, in this sense, always directed at the public interest, not at private interests.

The third element is that the general will is a single will, not a collection of different wills. The general will is not the sum of the individual wills of the citizens, but a single will that emerges from the collective deliberation of the citizens. The general will is, in this sense, a unified will, not a divided will.

The General Will and Popular Sovereignty

The general will implies the principle of popular sovereignty: the people are the ultimate source of political authority. The sovereign, in the Social Contract, is not the king or the government; the sovereign is the people themselves.

The principle of popular sovereignty has important implications. The most important is that political authority is not something that can be transferred or alienated. The people can delegate the exercise of political power to particular individuals or institutions, but they cannot transfer the sovereignty itself. The sovereignty remains with the people, and the people can always reclaim it.

The general will and popular sovereignty are closely connected, but they are not identical. Popular sovereignty is the principle that the people are the source of political authority; the general will is the will that emerges from the collective deliberation of the people. The first is a principle about the source of authority; the second is a principle about the content of the proper political decisions.

The Conditions for the General Will

Rousseau recognized that the general will does not always emerge from the collective deliberation of the people, and he identified several conditions that are necessary for the proper functioning of the general will.

The first condition is that the citizens should be properly informed. The general will is the will of the citizens as a whole directed at the common good, and it requires that the citizens have a proper understanding of the matters under consideration and of the implications of the various courses of action.

The second condition is that the citizens should not be subject to the influence of partial interests. The general will is directed at the common good, and it requires that the citizens be able to consider the matters under consideration from the perspective of the common good, not from the perspective of their private interests.

The third condition is that the political community should be relatively small and homogeneous. Rousseau believed that the general will could properly function only in a relatively small political community, in which the citizens could know each other and could engage in direct deliberation. He was skeptical of the possibility of a proper general will in a large or diverse political community.

The Controversies

The general will has been read in many different ways, and the controversies about its proper interpretation have been intense.

The first controversy concerns the relationship between the general will and the will of the majority. Some readers have argued that the general will is simply the will of the majority, and that the proper function of democratic politics is to identify and to implement the will of the majority. Other readers have argued that the general will is not the same as the will of the majority, and that the proper function of democratic politics is to identify the will that is directed at the common good, even when this will is at odds with the will of the majority.

The second controversy concerns the proper limits of the general will. Some readers have argued that the general will is unlimited, and that the proper function of democratic politics is to identify and to implement the general will, even when this requires the suppression of individual dissent. Other readers have argued that the general will is limited by the natural rights of the individuals, and that the proper function of democratic politics is to identify the will that is consistent with the protection of these rights.

The third controversy concerns the proper relationship between the general will and individual liberty. Some readers have argued that the general will is the foundation of true individual liberty, and that the proper function of the political life is to make possible the realization of the general will. Other readers have argued that the general will is incompatible with individual liberty, and that the proper function of the political life is the protection of the rights of the individuals against the potentially tyrannical will of the majority.

The Legacy

The general will has had a profound influence on the development of modern political thought. The French Revolution, especially in its more radical phases, was deeply influenced by Rousseau’s concept, and the various revolutionary governments of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries claimed to embody the general will. The contemporary republican tradition, with its emphasis on civic participation and the common good, is a continuation of the Rousseauian project.

The contemporary debate about the general will is part of the broader debate about the proper foundations of modern democracy. The defenders of the concept emphasize the importance of civic participation, the common good, and the proper functioning of the democratic process. The critics of the concept emphasize the importance of individual rights, the protection of minorities, and the proper limits of governmental power. The proper political life, on most contemporary accounts, requires a balance between the insights of the defenders and the critics.

Further Reading

• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (plato.stanford.edu), relevant entry
• Mark Goldie & Robert Wokler, eds., The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-Century Political Thought (2006)
• Terence Ball, Reappraising Political Theory (1995)