Enlightenment Political Philosophies: Enlightened Absolutism and Rousseaus Social Contract

29 February, 2012 IDS 172-01

Jonathan Snavely

Snavely 2

Being a citizen of eighteenth century Europe meant many things. By this, I do not mean that citizens had many duties. Rather a diverse body of opinions existed on what it meant to form and rule a government and how that government should relate to its citizenry. At one end, absolutists limited the powers of citizens, making them subject to their states. At the other, philosophes set forth a slew of political theories, all designed to grant more powers to citizens and more effectively promote public welfare. Here, we will compare the nature and effects of Frederick the Great and Jean-Jacques Rousseaus political philosophies. While remaining an absolutist, Frederick (II) the Greats Enlightened Absolutism was the most effective solution for implementing Enlightenment political reforms immediately. However, Rousseaus social contract theory, while unworkable purely as constructed in his day and in ours, paved a road for political advancements that are still in place today. Frederick IIs eighteenth century rule of Prussia is a study in the clashing of eras. His father, Frederick I, established Prussia as a small yet effective power through the implementation of strict military discipline. Frederick II grew up with the challenge of integrating this lifestyle with his love for art, reason, and, more broadly, Enlightenment ideals (OR/AR, 113). Like his fathers, Frederick IIs rule would include the characteristically severe and disciplinarian order of the Hohenzollerns. He retained the powers of government to himself, believed in limiting the education of the lower classes, and was not altogether opposed to serfdom (OR/AR, 116). At the same time, he cut down on corruption in the judicial system, increased industry in farming and manufacturing, and created a nation that acted as a safe haven for those persecuted for their religion abroad (OR/AR, 114-6). As the name Enlightened Absolutism, itself, suggests, Frederick IIs rule was a compromise which produced effective order within its context but also extended liberties which had not been exercised previously by the average European.

Snavely 3

Rousseau provided a radical alternative which argued for a paradigm shift toward an unprecedented form and degree of freedom. He challenged the legitimacy of government authority in eighteenth century Europe (PER, 431). Arguing that legitimate authoritys only source is the people, Rousseau rejected all European governments of the time. In their place, he advocated a system wherein individuals mutually agree to surrender the natural liberty they maintained before they entered society. Instead, he argued, they will experience civil liberty in the context of the corporate, or general, will (PER, 435-6). This may mean that individuals not conforming to the general will must be forced to conform, since, he claimed, It is solely on the basis of this common interest that every society should be governed (PER, 436). Rousseau believed that such a person would be forced to be free (PER, 435). He could come to this conclusion because he believed in the innate goodness of humanity. Therefore, the general will of a nation, constructed and governed as Rousseau suggested, will always make decisions based on the best interest of the group. Ultimately, he put forward his social contract (an agreement to live under the general will) as a means to achieving greater equality and general welfare (PER, 440). Now that we have basic accounts of Frederick and Rousseaus ideas, we can examine them critically, in turn. We will begin with arguments in favor of Frederick. Because a government like his might likely be considered despotic in the twenty-first century, context will be important. Prussia, being a small country, would be subject to domination from a number of larger nations in Europe. In order to remain competitive with its neighbors, Prussia was forced to be aggressive and efficient with its national resources. In a Europe that had been built on monarchical governments for hundreds of years, it is not reasonable to expect such a nation to try

Snavely 4

innovative methods for maintaining strict order. Instead, Frederick should be praised for the reforms he was able to accomplish within the context of his political climate. We might ask how we know that Rousseaus system would not have been more efficient toward the same ends. In short, we do not know that it would not have been more efficient. However, here, I would make allusion to the French Revolution, which occurred only decades after Rousseau developed his thought on the matter. The revolution provided an opportunity to see how libert, galit, and fraternit could be achieved in the real world. While the answer might because characterized more as messy than definitive, the French Revolution displayed the ugly side of the general will. The corrupted form of a democratic government is a mob. Rousseau, himself, argues that [a]s soon as public service ceases to be the chief business of the citizens and they would rather serve with their money than with their persons, the State is not far from its fall (PER, 441). Inherent in this statement is the assumption that the general will is going to be produced by citizens committed to the best interest of the State as a whole. Rousseau, with his belief in the perfectibility of humanity, may have discounted the ease with which individuals in civil society revert to a desire for personal accumulation of power, wealth, and glory. A small state such as Prussia would not have been able to handle the turmoil inherent to the nature of revolutions like Frances. Further, there is no guarantee that Prussian citizens were prepared to take on public service and their chief business. Without a people that were as enlightened as Frederick was himself, implementing a complete array of Enlightenment reforms up to abolishing the absolute monarch would certainly fail. This critique does not mean that Rousseau got government entirely wrong. Rather, later innovations, combined with some of his ideas, have produced many of the systems in the world today. Checks and balances, for example, moderate the need for central authority by vesting it in

Snavely 5

an elected executive while also supplying an independent legislative body to represent the will of the people. (Frederick IIs judicial reforms were an excellent step in this direction.) Rousseaus revolutionary assertion of the origins of authority remains enshrined in the Declaration of Independence which states [t]hat to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed (PER, 449). While the American founders clearly did not adopt Rousseaus radical views on property ownership and the collective, they were influenced by his assertion that governmental authority is grounded in the will of the people. With the added ingredient of a virtuous people, Rousseaus social contract becomes a productive system for producing order, welfare, and equality simultaneously. By synthesizing these two perspectives, we can determine that Frederick IIs reforms were appropriate to his context, while Rousseaus forward thinking reforms were quite valuable, if possibly misguided on the point of human nature. Ultimately, the two are difficult to directly compare because one figure was practicing policy making in the real world, while the other was theorizing about a future ideal. The absolute nature of Frederick IIs monarchy is no longer a preferred model for governance. However, this is only because the permeation of enlightenment values (and the evolution of political thought) moves more glacially than instantly. As literacy and standard of living increased throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries in the west, republicanism, incorporating elements of Rousseau, became a more broadly accepted form of government. At present, it seems as if Rousseau has won out as his social contract seems to resemble many of the socialistic governments of Europe to a degree, while the elements of Fredericks Prussia similar to military states would be widely looked down upon. Each is then a reasonably effective solution in its own time period, given certain assumptions.