What Is the General Will?

Question

What is the general will, and why is it the most influential and controversial concept in Rousseau's political philosophy? The question arises because the general will is simultaneously the foundation of democratic legitimacy and a concept that can be used to justify authoritarianism.

Quick Answer

The general will is the will of the people considered as a collective body, directed at the common good. For Rousseau, the social contract creates a 'moral and collective body' — the sovereign people — whose will is the general will. The general will is always right and always aims at the public benefit. It is not the sum of private wills (the will of all) but the common element in those wills. The general will is inalienable — it cannot be transferred to a representative — and indivisible — it cannot be divided into separate wills. Citizens who disobey the general will can be compelled to obey, which Rousseau controversially describes as being 'forced to be free.'

Historical Wisdom

Rousseau's concept of the general will emerges from the social contract tradition, but it transforms it. For Hobbes, the social contract creates a sovereign who rules over the people. For Rousseau, the social contract creates a sovereign that is the people. The general will is not the will of a ruler or a legislature but the will of the citizen body as a whole.

The concept was influenced by the Roman republic and the idea of the common good. It was also shaped by Rousseau's critique of the inequality and corruption of eighteenth-century European society. The general will is the expression of a community that has transcended private interest and achieved genuine collective self-government.

The general will has been enormously influential. It inspired the French Revolution's notion of popular sovereignty. It influenced Kant's concept of the social contract as a regulative idea. It shaped Hegel's theory of the state. It is the foundation of modern democratic theory, even as it has been criticized by liberals who fear its potential for tyranny.

Philosophical Perspectives

The general will has been subject to sharply divergent interpretations. The liberal interpretation, represented by Judith Shklar, sees the general will as a theory of democratic legitimacy and civic virtue. The totalitarian interpretation, represented by Jacob Talmon, sees it as a precursor to the totalitarian idea that the state can compel individuals to be free. The republican interpretation, represented by Quentin Skinner and Philip Pettit, sees the general will as a theory of non-domination: the general will is the will of a people who are not subject to the arbitrary will of any master.

Contemporary debates about the general will focus on whether it is a coherent concept. Critics argue that the idea of a single common good is illusory: in any society, there are multiple, conflicting interests. Defenders argue that the general will is not a single substantive good but a procedure for collective deliberation about the common good.

Lessons From Thinkers

From Rousseau: the legitimacy of law depends on its source — the collective will of the people — not just its content. From Rousseau: the general will is not the will of all; it requires citizens to deliberate about the common good, not aggregate their private interests. From the critics: the concept of the general will can be dangerous if it is used to justify the suppression of dissent. From the defenders: the general will is the foundation of collective self-determination and democratic legitimacy.

Practical Application

The general will is implicit in the way we think about democratic legitimacy. When we say that a law is legitimate because it represents the will of the people, we are invoking the idea of the general will. When we distinguish between what the people want (their immediate preferences) and what is in their interest (the common good), we are drawing on Rousseau's distinction between the will of all and the general will. The concept remains relevant to debates about popular sovereignty, referendums, and the limits of representative government.