The statement, “Rousseau’s Sovereign is Hobbes’ Leviathan with his head chopped off,” encapsulates a significant critique of Jean-Jacques Rousseau‘s political theory in comparison with Thomas Hobbes‘s. While both philosophers were concerned with the creation of a legitimate political order and the relationship between the individual and the state, their views on sovereignty, the role of the ruler, and the nature of human beings are strikingly different.
To fully understand this statement, it is necessary to explore the political theories of both Rousseau and Hobbes, particularly their ideas on the sovereign, the state of nature, and social contract.
Hobbes’ View of Sovereignty: The Leviathan
Hobbes’ political theory, as articulated in his work Leviathan (1651), begins with a pessimistic view of human nature. According to Hobbes, humans in their natural state—without the constraints of law or government—are driven by selfish desires, fear, and a desire for self-preservation. In this state, there is a constant threat of violence and conflict, famously referred to as the “war of all against all”.
To escape this anarchical condition, Hobbes proposes that individuals enter into a social contract, agreeing to surrender their individual rights to a sovereign authority in exchange for security and order. This sovereign, which Hobbes refers to as the Leviathan, is an absolute ruler with unquestionable power to make and enforce laws. The sovereign must possess absolute authority, and in return, the people receive protection from the chaos of the state of nature.
Hobbes emphasizes that the sovereign’s power must be undivided and uncontested to ensure peace and prevent a return to the state of nature. In this sense, the Leviathan is a metaphor for a powerful, almost god-like entity that holds supreme authority over all aspects of life, including law, morality, and society.
Rousseau’s View of Sovereignty: The General Will
Rousseau’s political theory, presented in his Social Contract (1762), offers a markedly different view of sovereignty. Rousseau, unlike Hobbes, does not view human nature as inherently bad or selfish. Instead, he argues that people are naturally good but are corrupted by the institutions of society, particularly private property and social inequality.
Rousseau’s concept of the state of nature is more optimistic than Hobbes’, as he believes that in the natural state, humans lived peacefully and cooperatively. However, as society developed, individuals began to claim private property, leading to social inequality and conflict.
To remedy this, Rousseau proposes a new form of social contract in which individuals come together to form a collective will that represents the general good. This general will is the essence of Rousseau’s idea of sovereignty and is not merely the sum of individual wills. The general will represents the common good and is the source of all legitimate political authority.
For Rousseau, the sovereign is not a single ruler or sovereign entity but a collective body composed of the people as a whole. Unlike Hobbes’ Leviathan, which is embodied in a single, powerful ruler, Rousseau’s sovereign is the collective will of the people. The sovereign is therefore a democratic entity rather than a monarch, and it cannot be separated from the citizens themselves. Rousseau’s sovereign is thus more abstract and decentralized, focusing on collective participation rather than absolute, individual power.
The Headless Leviathan: The Critique
The phrase “Rousseau’s Sovereign is Hobbes’ Leviathan with his head chopped off” is a critique that highlights a fundamental difference between Hobbes and Rousseau in terms of who holds the power and how that power is exercised.
- Hobbes’ Leviathan represents centralized, absolute authority in the form of a powerful ruler or sovereign with supreme control over society. The Leviathan’s head—the sovereign’s absolute power—is not subject to challenge or limitation. In Hobbes’ view, the sovereign must be undivided and monolithic, as any division of power would lead to the collapse of the state and a return to chaos.
- Rousseau’s Sovereign, by contrast, is headless in the sense that it is not embodied in a single ruler or central authority. The sovereign, or the general will, is not an individual person but rather the collective will of all citizens. Rousseau strips away the personal authority that Hobbes gives to the sovereign and instead emphasizes collective decision-making and the participation of all members of society in the formation of laws and governance. There is no single head or person who holds absolute power; rather, the power resides in the people as a whole.
In essence, Rousseau’s sovereign lacks the personalized, absolute power of Hobbes’ Leviathan. Rousseau’s model is more democratic and egalitarian, with sovereignty residing in the people collectively rather than in a single ruler. However, this also means that the will of the people is not always as clear-cut or direct as Hobbes’ idea of a single, powerful ruler. Rousseau’s general will is not simply the sum of individual desires but represents the common good, which may sometimes conflict with individual interests.
The Implications of the “Headless Leviathan”
The comparison to a “headless Leviathan” suggests a significant critique of Rousseau’s theory from the perspective of Hobbesian political thought. It implies that Rousseau’s idea of sovereignty lacks the decisive, unified authority that Hobbes views as essential for maintaining order and preventing societal collapse. Without a centralized authority, it might be argued that Rousseau’s sovereign would be ineffective or too fragmented to ensure the stability of the state.
However, from Rousseau’s perspective, his headless sovereign is actually an improvement upon Hobbes’ Leviathan. By removing the concentration of power in a single ruler and making sovereignty reside in the collective will of the people, Rousseau aims to create a political order that is more just, equal, and legitimate. While Hobbes’ Leviathan may offer security, Rousseau’s general will offers freedom and self-governance.
Conclusion The statement “Rousseau’s Sovereign is Hobbes’ Leviathan with his head chopped off” captures the key differences in their political theories. Hobbes’ Leviathan represents absolute, centralized authority in the form of a powerful ruler, while Rousseau’s sovereign represents a collective and democratic will that emerges from the people as a whole. Rousseau’s model critiques Hobbes’ notion of absolute power, replacing it with a more egalitarian and participatory approach to sovereignty. Despite this, Rousseau’s sovereign, like Hobbes’ Leviathan, still seeks to maintain social order, though through a fundamentally different structure.
Leave a Reply