Locke vs Rousseau: Two Visions of the Social Contract

The social contract theories of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are two of the most influential political theories in modern history, but they differ. Locke’s theory, developed in the Two Treatises of Government (1689), emphasized the protection of individual rights and the limitation of governmental power. Rousseau’s theory, developed in the Social Contract (1762), emphasized the participation of citizens in the collective self-government of the community. This article compares the two theories, examines their key differences, and considers their respective legacies.

The State of Nature

Both Locke and Rousseau begin their theories with a description of the state of nature, but their descriptions differ.

Locke’s state of nature is a condition of equality and freedom, in which human beings possess natural rights to life, liberty, and property. The state of nature is not, for Locke, a state of war; it is a state in which the natural rights of individuals are protected by the law of nature, even if the protection is not always effective. The state of nature is a condition in which the rights of individuals are recognized, and in which the proper foundation of political authority is the consent of the governed.

Rousseau’s state of nature is a more idealized condition, in which human beings are solitary, peaceful, and happy. The natural man, for Rousseau, has few needs, and he is able to satisfy those needs without depending on others. The state of nature is a condition of natural freedom and natural equality, and the proper foundation of political authority is the general will of the community.

The difference between the two accounts is significant. Locke’s state of nature is a condition in which rights exist but are not always protected; Rousseau’s state of nature is a condition in which freedom and equality are realized without the need for any political institutions. The two accounts imply very different things about the proper foundation of political authority.

The Foundation of the Rights

The two theories also differ in their account of the foundation of the rights.

For Locke, the natural rights are anterior to political authority, and they inhere in the individuals as human beings. The rights to life, liberty, and property are not granted by governments; they are possessed by individuals, and the proper function of government is to protect them. The government that violates these rights is acting illegitimately, and the people have the right to resist or to overthrow it.

For Rousseau, the natural freedom and equality of the human being is not a property of the individual, but a property of the collective. The individual, in joining the political community, is transformed into a citizen, and the rights of the citizen are different from the rights of the natural man. The proper political life, for Rousseau, is one in which the citizens come together to determine the conditions of their common life, and in which each individual is subject only to the laws that he has prescribed for himself.

The difference between the two accounts is fundamental. Locke’s theory is a theory of individual rights against the state; Rousseau’s theory is a theory of civic participation in the collective self-government of the community. The two theories imply very different things about the proper relationship between the individual and the political community.

The Role of Government

The two theories also differ in their account of the role of government.

For Locke, the proper function of government is the protection of the natural rights of the individuals. The government is the trustee of these rights, and the proper exercise of governmental power is the protection of the life, liberty, and property of the citizens. The government that exceeds its proper function is acting tyrannically, and the people have the right to resist.

For Rousseau, the proper function of government is the expression of the general will of the community. The government is not a separate body that rules over the citizens; it is the instrument through which the citizens express their collective will in the laws. The proper exercise of governmental power, for Rousseau, is the implementation of the laws that express the general will of the community.

The difference between the two accounts is significant. Locke’s theory is a theory of limited government, in which the proper role of the state is the protection of the natural rights of the individuals. Rousseau’s theory is a theory of popular government, in which the proper role of the state is the implementation of the collective will of the community.

The Legacies

The two theories have had very different legacies in modern political thought.

Locke’s theory has been the basis of the liberal tradition in modern political thought. The American Revolution, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the contemporary international human rights regime draw on the central arguments of Locke’s theory. The contemporary liberal commitment to the protection of individual rights, the limitation of governmental power, and the rule of law is a continuation of the Lockean tradition.

Rousseau’s theory has been the basis of the more radical democratic tradition. The French Revolution, especially in its Jacobin phase, was deeply influenced by Rousseau’s theory. The contemporary republican tradition, with its emphasis on civic participation and the common good, is a continuation of the Rousseauian tradition.

The contemporary engagement with the two theories is part of the broader debate about the proper foundations of modern democracy. The defenders of the liberal tradition emphasize the importance of individual rights and the limitation of governmental power. The defenders of the republican tradition emphasize the importance of civic participation and the common good. The proper political life, on most contemporary accounts, requires a balance between the insights of the two traditions.

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)