What Is the Social Contract?

Question

What is the social contract, and why has it been the dominant model of political legitimacy in the modern era? The question arises because every government claims authority over its subjects, and the social contract tradition asks what could justify that authority.

Quick Answer

The social contract is a theoretical device that explains the origin and legitimacy of political authority. The basic idea is that individuals, living in a pre-political condition (the state of nature), agree to form a political society by consenting to a contract that establishes government and law. The terms of this contract determine the scope and limits of political authority. Hobbes's version produces an absolute sovereign. Locke's version produces a limited, constitutional government. Rousseau's version produces a direct democracy based on the general will. Rawls's version produces principles of justice that prioritize the least advantaged. The social contract tradition remains the most influential framework for thinking about political legitimacy, though it has been criticized by feminists, communitarians, and critical theorists.

Historical Wisdom

Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan (1651) is the founding text of social contract theory. Hobbes imagines a state of nature in which human life is 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short' — a war of all against all where no industry, culture, or society is possible. Rational individuals, seeking peace, agree to lay down their natural rights and authorize a sovereign with absolute power. The only alternative is the horror of the state of nature.

John Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1689) offers a more optimistic vision. The state of nature is governed by natural law, and individuals have natural rights to life, liberty, and property. The social contract creates a government with limited powers, and the people retain the right to dissolve the government if it violates their trust.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract (1762) offers the most radical version. Rousseau argues that the social contract transforms individuals from natural beings into moral and political beings. The contract creates the general will — the collective will of the people directed at the common good. Sovereignty is inalienable and indivisible; it cannot be represented.

Philosophical Perspectives

Contemporary social contract theory is dominated by John Rawls's A Theory of Justice (1971). Rawls imagines an original position in which parties choose principles of justice behind a veil of ignorance — they do not know their class, race, gender, talents, or conception of the good. From this position, Rawls argues, they would choose equal basic liberties and the difference principle.

Contract theory has been criticized from multiple directions. Communitarians like Michael Sandel argue that the contract tradition assumes an atomistic, unencumbered self that does not exist. Feminists argue that the contract tradition has historically excluded women and the domestic sphere. Critical theorists argue that the contract tradition masks relations of power and domination. Despite these criticisms, the social contract remains the dominant framework for thinking about political legitimacy.

Lessons From Thinkers

From Hobbes: the alternative to political authority is a terrifying state of anarchy. From Locke: political authority is limited and conditional on the protection of rights. From Rousseau: legitimate authority expresses the general will, not the will of a faction. From Rawls: the principles of justice are those that would be chosen by free and equal persons in a fair agreement. From the critics: the contract tradition has blind spots — it tends to assume a specific kind of rational, autonomous agent and to overlook relations of power and dependence.

Practical Application

The social contract is not merely a historical theory. It informs contemporary debates about constitutional legitimacy, civil disobedience, and the limits of state power. When citizens ask whether a law is legitimate, they are implicitly invoking the idea of the social contract. When they protest a law they consider unjust, they are asserting that the contract has been violated. The social contract tradition provides the moral vocabulary for talking about what governments can legitimately require of their citizens.