DRINKING WINE IN CHAINS: AN ANALYSIS OF ROUSSEAU’S FREEDOM

Numerous political theorists have attempted to explain the divergence between the state of nature and civil society, including Rousseau who provides a thought-provoking answer. His most famous quote, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains, ” describes restrictions on freedom as “ chains ” (Rousseau, 2012, 156). In his letter to the Republic of Geneva, he regards freedom as “full-bodied wines ” for the robust bodies that are accustomed to them. In this essay, I analyze the differences between Rousseau’s concept of freedom under the state of nature and freedom made possible by the social contract of the general will as discussed in “Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men ” (Second Discourse) and “On the Social Contract” (Social Contract). I argue that Rousseau endorses a social contract based on collective governance in accordance with the general will as the preferable “ chains ” on the freedom to enable citizens to realize true liberty. I begin by introducing Rousseau’s concept of natural freedom in the state of nature. This is followed by scrutinizing Rousseau’s critique of the transition from the state of nature to society, which he bases on the lack of a good social contract for creating such a society. I then examine Rousseau’s normative argument for civil and moral freedom made possible by the social contract of the general will, in which he diverges from his thought experiment of the state of nature and deals with reality. Finally, I conclude that drinking “ wine ” in “ chains ” under a good social contract is preferable.

In the state of nature, natural freedom is the unlimited right to all things without there being any form of interference by others; it is constrained by an individual’ s strength and is conducive to peaceful and tranquil lives. Human beings are free in the state of nature in two senses. First, they have free agency to recognize their freedom to submit or resist nature ’ s commands. Second, they are free from the interference of others ’ opinions because human beings are independent in the state of nature. There is no legal or social constraint on freedom, yet they are limited by their physical strength (Rousseau, 2012, p. 167).

From this state of nature, Rousseau depicts a Golden Age. This is a state of social interdependence, as a transitional period between the savage state of nature and civil society. It is a thought experiment that Rousseau articulates to make a sharp contrast between the harmony of the state of nature and the miserable situation of domination under an unfair political society, highlighting the undesirability of the latter. Rousseau writes, “[T]he rich man, thus urged by necessity, conceived at length the profoundest plan that ever entered the mind of man… to give them other institutions as favourable to himself as the law of nature was unfavourable. ” He is dissatisfied with the kind of social contract that is rooted merely in the institutionalization of wealth inequality – the rich fool the poor to give up their freedom and join in society, while the poor do not realize that they are being oppressed and dominated (Rousseau, 2012, p. 78). Since laws are rooted in private property under this kind of social compact, whoever has more assets has more power in society. Alongside the introduction of private property, people materially rely on others to accumulate properties, resulting in endless competition among them (Rousseau, 2012, p. 77). Therefore, it appears necessary for human beings to have a good social contract in the state of civil society.

Thus, Rousseau attempts to establish the terms of a social contract that maximizes civil and moral liberties within society. Civil and moral liberties are the products of human beings ’ free agency, by which everyone is willing to transfer their rights to the entire community. Civil freedom is the “ proprietary ownership ” of all one possesses (Rousseau, 2012, p. 167), confirming everyone ’ s obligation to respect others ’ property. Moral liberty is the ability to be the true master of oneself rather than being governed by others ’ will or one ’ s appetites or desires. Rousseau argues that civil and moral freedoms are crucial components of political society. According to Rousseau, civil liberty sets the property rights and makes all humans equal by convention and right. He argues that no citizen should be “ so rich as to be capable of buying another ” and none so poor that is forced to sell oneself (Rousseau, 2012, p. 189), meaning that moderate wealth inequality is allowed.

Rousseau argues that a legitimate social contract, referring to the rules according to which a society agrees to operate, stipulates that these two freedoms are constrained by the general will. This general will stems from the free cooperative activity among equals and is guided by common interests and is therefore always just. Only it can direct the forces of the state according to the common good. Rousseau regards law by the general will as an “honourable yoke ” that is so “ pleasant and salutary ” that even the “most arrogant heads bear with all the greater docility, ” and they should be born to bear no other yoke (Rousseau, 2012, p. 32).

Unlike the unjust social contract that is based on force and coercion, Rousseau’s social contract is based upon the unanimous free and equal consent of all contractors. There is no relation to domination within society: contractors are citizens insofar as they participate in the legislative authority, and they are subjects insofar as they are restricted by the laws of the state. In Rousseau’s words, this social contract gives human beings an “ advantageous exchange of an uncertain and precarious mode of existence for another that is better and surer ” (Rousseau, 2012, p. 167). They exchange natural independence for liberty, the power to harm others for their own security, and their force for “ a right that the social union renders invincible ” (Rousseau, 2012, p. 167). Most importantly, their lives, which they dedicate to the state, are constantly protected by it. Therefore, the “ chains ” in society with a good social contract are preferable because they are people’s self-imposing restrictions on themselves, securing them more freedom and equality than in the state of nature.

In conclusion, civil and moral freedoms in Rousseau’s ideal type of society are superior to unrestrained natural freedom. The restricted freedoms –“ wine ” – under the social contract by the general will are more suitable for human beings, and the self-legislative laws –“ chains ” – are preferable for people to determine their own chains and become their own masters. Thus, drinking wine in chains serves to illustrate Rousseau’s highest hope for the best of humanity.

Rousseau, J.J. (2012). Basic Political Writings. (Translated and Edited by Donald A. Cress. Introduction and Annotation by David Wootton). Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.