Lesson video

Hello, my name is Mrs. Rawbone and I'd like to welcome you to this RE lesson on analysing Rousseau's social contract.

I'm really looking forward to working with you on this today.

Our learning objective today is to analyse Rousseau's idea of the social contract and how it relates to freedom and the general will.

Some keywords that we'll be using today are elected officials, the general will and the social contract.

Elected officials are, according to Rousseau, individuals chosen by the people to implement the general will.

The general will is the collective will of the people, focused on what is best for society as a whole and not on individual desires.

"The Social Contract" is the name for Rousseau's 1762 book but it's also the name for his idea that individuals must give up some freedoms to form a just society with laws reflecting the common good.

Today's lesson will be split into two parts.

We'll be looking at the social contract and we'll be looking at the role of elected officials.

So let's start the lesson by finding out about the social contract.

Philosophers are academics and thinkers who study ultimate questions about existence, knowledge, ethics and reality using logic to explore these topics.

Whether you have a religious or a non-religious worldview, you can use philosophy as a tool to understand the arguments that other people use to support their views.

So in this lesson we're going to be using the philosophical tool of critical thinking to analyse Rousseau's idea of a social contract.

Here you can see the title page of Rousseau's "The Social Contract." "The Social Contract" was published in 1762 and it explains Rousseau's idea of how governments should work because he was a political philosopher.

He argues that people must give up some freedoms to the state in exchange for protection of their rights.

However this must serve what he calls the common good.

Rousseau introduces the idea of the general will and this represents the collective interests of the whole community.

By following this, society can achieve equality and freedom for all.

The front cover of this edition of "The Social Contract," published in Amsterdam in 1762, features Lady Justice holding scales to represent fairness and equality and this is a key theme of Rousseau's work.

We can see the close-up there.

So that might not seem particularly unusual today, the idea of justice and equality and fairness in government, but at the time of Rousseau this was quite a new idea.

According to Rousseau, society can only become just, which means fair, if it follows what's known as the general will.

The general will isn't an easy thing to work out because it's not the sum of what everyone wants.

So in other words it's not what I want, and what you want, and what other individuals want.

It's not the same thing at all, so it's not kind of combining everything we want and seeing if we can give most of it to most people.

For Rousseau that is not the general will, it's not what is good for the collective.

Instead, according to Rousseau, society, when it does become just and follows the general will, does what is best for everyone as a whole, so the community.

So not each person added together but the actual group, as if the group was a being on its own.

You can think of it like this, what's best for everyone as a whole and not, so taking away from that, what's best or what's wanted by individuals.

So if we thought about the sum of what I want and you want and what other individuals want, we would have to take that out of the equation, that's nothing to do with the general will.

So what's best for the whole of society may not match what I want, but it does match what's good for the whole.

So let's check your understanding on this.

There are three words missing and I'd like you to write down what you think the missing words are.

Rousseau's concept of the.

will is focused on the.

of the community, not on the interests of.

So take some time, have a think, jot down the words that you think are correct for those gaps, pause the video and come back when you're ready to check your work.

Well done if you got that it is the general will and that's focused on the good of the community and not on the interests of individuals within that community.

So looking at the social contract a bit further, according to Rousseau, it's agreeing to follow laws that are created by the general will.

So we have this collective good and from it we gain some laws, and this means that we have to, as individuals, give up some of our freedoms. But what will happen is that we will have true freedom because society will become fair.

Remember those scales of Lady Justice on the front cover of his book, representing the idea of fairness and equality.

So what happens is that people give up acting only on their personal desires.

In return, they get protection, equality and a sense of belonging to a community.

And so you give and you get back, and this is what the social contract is, according to Rousseau.

So people are willingly agreeing to follow rules that will result in true freedom for them and a fairer society for everyone.

Sophia and Jun are using the philosophical tool of critical thinking to analyse Rousseau's social contract.

And they're thinking about the following question.

Is it fair to ask people to give up personal desires for the common good? Jun says yes, because the common good benefits everyone.

If we only focus on personal desires, society becomes unequal and chaotic.

Sophia says no, because people have different needs and goals and forcing everyone to prioritise the common good ignores their individual freedom.

So this is an example of critical thinking.

We're trying to criticise Rousseau's idea and we're looking at points for and against.

So I'd like you to have a little go now.

And I'd like you to just think about those two views from Jun and Sophia and think about which one you feel closest to.

So do you think that actually giving up some of your personal desires, the things that you want to benefit the whole, is a good thing? Because do you think you will benefit and the group will benefit? Or do you think it will mean the loss of your freedom? If you are able to turn and talk to someone nearby, please do, pause the video, give yourself a chance to think about it and then come back and we'll be doing some more critical thinking.

So we're still thinking critically here and Sophia and Jun again are discussing the social contract.

Here they're thinking, well, what happens if the general will doesn't align with everyone's needs? So not thinking so much here about wants, but needs.

Jun says, well, some people may feel overlooked, but it's still important to prioritise the majority's needs to maintain fairness.

So thinking a bit differently from just what people want, but actually sometimes we might have to, according to Jun, prioritise what most people need.

Sophia says, if the general will ignores individual needs, it creates resentment and inequality, making it harder to achieve true unity.

So they're both challenging Rousseau's idea to an extent by saying, well, we can't ignore the individual needs that people have because if we do, that won't be a good thing.

So have a think about whose view you feel best matches your own, and if you're able to again, have a conversation with someone nearby, pause the video and come back when you're ready for more.

So Sophia and Jun are still discussing Rousseau's social contract and they're using the tool of critical analysis again.

The question I think about here is, can protection and equality really be guaranteed by the community? So remember that cycle, if we give up our freedom, Rousseau says, we will gain protection from society and we'll gain equality.

So the question here is challenging that.

Can it be guaranteed? Jun says, yes, a strong community can ensure protection and equality by working together and creating fair rules that benefit everyone.

Sophia says, no, it's unrealistic because people have different priorities and power imbalances can still lead to inequality.

So have a think about whose view best matches your own.

So think critically about what Rousseau says about protection and equality and the fact that we can gain that if we give up some freedoms. Do you agree more with Jun or do you agree more with Sophia? So let's check your understanding.

Is this statement true or false? According to Rousseau, true freedom means doing whatever one desires regardless of the law.

Take some time to think about your answer.

Pause the video if you need to and also have a think about why you came to that conclusion.

Well done if you put that that was false.

So for Rousseau, true freedom is not doing whatever you want.

Let's have a think about why.

Well, that's because Rousseau believes that true freedom comes from actually following laws that serve the common good and not from acting on your personal desires.

Let's have a go at practising our understanding of the social contract.

So the first of two tasks that we're going to do for task A is to make a decision about whether to build a new shopping centre.

This decision has divided a small town.

There are three options and you are going to decide which option in the table below best supports the general will according to Rousseau and you're going to explain why.

So option A is to build the shopping centre and the pros or positives of this are that it will bring jobs to the town and it will provide shops.

The cons are that it could harm local businesses and it could harm the environment.

Option B is don't build the shopping centre.

Now the positives or pros of this are it will protect local businesses and it will keep the environment peaceful, but the con is that some people may struggle to find the shopping they need.

Option C is to build a smaller shopping centre.

Now the positive of this is that it would address the need for shopping and jobs and it will protect the environment because it's smaller, but the con is it might not attract investment and it might not provide enough jobs.

So it's a challenging decision but you've got to choose one of them and which one do you think would fit best with Rousseau's ideas about the collective good, the general will.

Make sure you explain why as well.

So take your time, pause the video and come back when you're ready to see what you might have written.

So you could have said lots of things but let's have a look what we've got here.

Option C seems to fit best with Rousseau's thinking, building a smaller environmentally friendly shopping centre.

Now you might have written that it best reflects the general will because Rousseau believed that the general will is not simply the majority's desires but it's rather the collective good of society as a whole.

By building a smaller shopping centre we're balancing the needs of the economy, jobs and shopping options, with the long-term health of the community, the environmental protection.

This reflects Rousseau's idea that society should promote the common good and consider the welfare of the entire community, not just a specific group, for example like business owners or environmentalists.

And it also shows a willingness to address the needs of the majority, those who want a shopping centre, while still acknowledging the importance of protecting the environment and supporting local businesses.

Well done if you chose option C.

It does seem to be the closest to the idea that Rousseau has about the general will and if you talked about the idea of collective good and how it seems to be helping the community as a whole.

So for part two of our task, you're gonna have a think about four things that Rousseau believed people should agree to in order to form a social contract.

And I would like you to contrast each of them with an example of what Rousseau thinks happens when there is no social contract.

So in other words you're going to kind of say what would happen if those things were not in place.

We have A.

I will follow laws that benefit everyone.

So that is something which Rousseau thinks people agree to.

B, I will give up some freedom.

C, I will follow laws that apply to everyone.

And D, I will act in ways that help the whole community.

So take your time, you're going to need to write four pieces, probably a few sentences for each because you're going to explain what would happen if people did not follow that part of the agreement.

Pause the video, come back when you're ready to see what you might have written.

So let's have a look what you could have said.

You might have said A.

I will follow laws that benefit everyone.

Well without this, without a social contract, laws might actually favour the rich.

So wealthy individuals or companies might influence the law and leave poorer people with fewer rights.

B, I will give up some freedom.

Well without this, people might do whatever they want.

So they might steal or harm each other.

C, I will follow laws that apply to everyone.

Without this, some people might get special treatment like nobles who didn't have to follow the same laws as common or ordinary people.

And D, I will act in ways that help the whole community.

Well without a social contract, some people might end up getting special treatment like how politicians or business leaders can sometimes avoid things like legal consequences.

So you may not have the same examples as me but well done if you've got kind of something similar and if you've been able to explain what might happen without people agreeing to do that thing.

So let's move on to look at the role of elected officials.

Alex and Aisha are discussing how we work out the general will.

Aisha, says we all know what we want as individuals but how do we work out what the general will is? Alex replies, Rousseau says we should discuss what's best for everyone.

Aisha says, well in other words we should find out what most people want.

Alex reminds her no Rousseau says we should find out what benefits the whole community not what the most popular choice is.

So what challenges might there be in finding out what's best for the whole community? I'd like you to have a think about this.

Pause, have a conversation with someone nearby if you can and then come back when you're ready to find out more about how Rousseau believed we could work out the general will.

So Alex and Aisha are continuing their discussion.

Aisha says, once we know what the general will is, how do we make sure it is followed? And Alex replies, Rousseau says elected officials represent general will.

So elected means people that have been chosen or voted for.

Aisha replies, so they make sure the laws reflect what's best for all of us.

And Alex says, exactly, they focus on the common good not what they want or the desires of specific groups.

So this sounds maybe a little bit like the way society operates today.

We elect officials so we have an elected government and in theory they create laws that are meant to be for the common good for everybody.

So you can see how Rousseau's thinking has influenced the way politics works even today.

So I'd like you to have a think about how we can make sure elected officials represent the general will and not just their own interests or the interests of powerful groups, and that's a really challenging question even in today's society.

Pause, have a conversation nearby if you can and come back when you're ready to move on.

So let's check your understanding.

Which of the following best explains Rousseau's view on the role of elected officials? Is it A elected officials should act based on the interests of their political party? Is it B elected officials must only focus on the majority vote regardless of the common good? Is it C elected officials should represent the general will and act for the common good? Or is it D elected officials can disregard the general will if they believe their actions will benefit society? So take your time, jot down your answer, pause the video if you need to and come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you put C, elected officials should represent the general will and act for the common good.

Rousseau believed that a government stays honest when its leaders prioritise the community's well-being over their own interests.

So here's an example of how that might look.

The general will, the community's well-being, weighs much heavier than their personal or political interests.

In contrast, he believed a government is dishonest when its leaders prioritise their interests over the community's.

Elected officials must answer to the people and they must follow the law.

If they fail to represent the general will then they can be removed.

So Rousseau had this kind of backup plan, I suppose, but if things went wrong then you could change your elected officials.

So if the balance starts to look like this, if their personal or political interests come first then because they're answerable to the people and the law.

they can be removed.

Let's check your understanding.

What does Rousseau believe about the relationship between elected officials and the law? Is it A, elected officials are above the law and cannot be questioned? Is it B, elected officials must follow the law and serve at the will of the people? Is it C, elected officials can make their own laws without public input? Or is it D, elected officials should ignore laws that conflict with their personal interests? Take your time to think about the correct answer, pause the video if you need to and then come back to check.

Well done if you put B.

They must follow the law and serve at the will of the people.

So ultimately, although the people give up their freedoms, they do still have that power to overthrow the elected officials should they need to.

In the Social Contract, Rousseau argued that politics and religion should align by focusing on the common good.

So here we have politics, elected officials in Rousseau's world represent the general will.

And here on the right hand side we have the civil religion which is what Rousseau promoted.

So different from the religion that he was used to, so he was Protestant and he was Catholic and then he was Protestant again.

This wasn't about following rigid teachings, it taught justice and equality.

So he felt this was the ideal way for religion to be.

So politics and religion can overlap because they are both about the common good.

So let's have a practise of what we know on elected officials.

Izzy has been thinking about our unique question, religion and politics in the Enlightenment, how are they aligned? She's using what she has learned about Rousseau's thinking on the Social Contract and elected officials to explain how Rousseau linked religion and politics.

She's made some mistakes and I would like you to rewrite her explanation so it is correct.

Izzy says, Rousseau believed that religion and politics were separate.

He suggested a civil religion that was organised and focused on strict rules.

This civil religion could make sure elected officials acted for the good of the whole community.

So take your time, reread Izzy's answer, read it really carefully and find the bits that you think are incorrect and then I'd like you to write out a correct version.

Pause the video and when you're ready, come back to see what you might have written.

So you might have written, Rousseau believed that religion and politics were connected.

He suggested a civil religion that was simple and focused on shared moral values rather than strict rules.

This civil religion could help ensure elected officials acted for the good of the whole community.

Well done if you managed to say something about the civil religion and about its focus on the common good alongside elected officials focusing on the same thing too.

So let's have a look at what we've learned today on analysing the Social Contract by Rousseau.

We've learned that according to Rousseau a social contract is a shared agreement where individuals give up some freedoms to form a just society.

The general will represents the collective interest of society prioritising what is best for everyone rather than individual desires.

True freedom arises from adhering to laws derived from the general will.

Elected officials represent the general will and act for the collective good.

They must prioritise the community's well-being over personal political interests and they can be removed if they do not.

And we can use critical thinking to analyse Rousseau's social contract.

Thank you for all your hard work today and for working with me on this lesson.