# The General Will

## September 23rd, 2020

-   "I would let my cat into my office, but she's deaf and has no volume control" - the first thing I hear this morning from our esteemed Dr. Kirkman
-   "First thing's first: I hope you got to watch my lecture introducing the final project"
    -   I didn't realize this was out, but okay
    -   "For Monday, you're going to propose a topic for your final project; it doesn't have to be super-specific yet, but hopefully it'll get you thinking and, if you share interests with 2 or 3 people, maybe you guys can collaborate (which I do encourage, especially if you have some interesting disagreements)"
    -   After that, we'll have a few milestones for you guys to meet to keep you on task
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-   "Alright, Rousseau's talking about the 'general will', and we need to be careful here because Rousseau is EASILY misunderstood - sometimes he uses language that's reminiscent of Locke but in very different ways"
    -   Both of them are talking about the consent of the governed, but they have VERY different uses for the word "people." We usually think of people as just multiple persons, as a plural noun
        -   Rousseau, however, uses the word "people" as a SINGULAR noun, to refer to a particular group as a whole - and that's important! Locke was thinking in terms of individuals, while Rousseau thinks that a group of people is fundamentally different from mere individuals
        -   So, when Rousseau says "The general will is not the same as the will of all," that sounds like nonsense to a Lockean - but for Rousseau, he means "The will of the PEOPLE (as a singular group) is different from the sum of a bunch of individual wills"
            -   Specifically in Book II, Rousseau says the general will is made up of what everyone agrees on, and ignores all that they disagree about
                -   "What about if you have a HUGE government where there's very little consensus? That's actually a problem for Rousseau's model - he was thinking of city-states that have a fairly homogenous culture and a shared general vision of 'the good life', and not diverse nation-states"
                -   However, even if Rousseau's demanding model can't be applied literally, we can still use it as a "regulative ideal" to shoot for
                    -   "One of the main critiques of Rousseau's model is that it's pretty demanding of its citizens; it demands that everyone stays informed and offers good-faith, constant participation in politics. Rousseau doesn't offer any details and is actively against political parties that would simplify thinking about these issues, so how do you actually get this grand discussion started and maintained?"
                    -   So, there are problems with Rousseau's model - but do we take it as proof it's unworkable, or is this an ideal worth trying to strive for?
        -   Similarly, Rousseau uses the word "Sovereign" to refer not to a single king or ruler, but to any legitimate source of authority or power - in his case, the general will of the people
    -   The point is, Locke and Rousseau present us with 2 different extremes of popular sovereignty: totally independent and classically liberal, or totally collectivist and classically republican

-   One important thing to note: Rousseau has alluded to some things, but he has NOT talked about government at all yet (he won't until Book III)
    -   Also, remember what we said last class: Locke and Rousseau have different conceptions of "freedom." Part of this is down to Locke being an empiricist and Rousseau being a rationalist, but for Locke, freedom is a lack of restraint on our actions; for Rousseau, freedom is the freedom TO participate in public life and to act on principles
        -   In Locke's view of democracy, you vote for your own interests, and what emerges are factions and groups to represent a ton of interests about what THEY WANT. "Politics is essentially a marketplace"
        -   In Rousseau's view, you vote on what you think is morally best for the community as a whole, and discuss with others if you disagree

-   So, hopefully that gives you a sense of what Rousseau means by "the general will," although some things might still be unclear
    -   One thing that'll become clearer is Rousseau's idea of law: there'll be laws that regulate what we can do as individuals, and that will be enforced, but there will also be broad areas where people are free to exercise their liberty and do whatever they want - because, again, people won't vote for laws that they don't want to follow, so oppressive laws shouldn't ever become part of "the general will"
        -   "We see Rousseau here being a precursor to Immanuel Kant, who would say that morals come from the fact that we have free will and an agreement on what the moral laws are that we should follow - and that we shouldn't make any laws that we wouldn't want to follow ourselves"
    -   Basically, the "general will" is the public's shared, agreed-on vision for what the republic should be and do

-   How does this vision actually get implemented in government, then? That'll be what we get into next week
    -   "A quick heads-up: Rousseau has a chapter called 'The Law Giver' in your readings for next week, and he is NOT talking about a legislature there or a law-making body, but instead about the founder of a state or government"
    -   "Sorry for talking the entire class, but because the general will is so frequently misunderstood I thought it worthwhile to spend a whole class on it"