Previous
Book 4, Chapter 7
Themes
Key
LitCharts assigns a color and icon to each theme in The Social Contract, which you can use to track the themes throughout the work.
Human Freedom and Society
Sovereignty, Citizenship, and Direct Democracy
Government and the Separation of Powers
National Longevity and Moral Virtue
Summary
Analysis
Rousseau declares that the first states were religious (or theocratic) and every society had its own God, so “national divisions produced polytheism, [… and] religious and civil intolerance.” In these theocratic states, “political war was just as much theological war,” and Gods only ruled over specific nations. Conversion and conquest, too, were one and the same: when Rome expanded, it spread its Gods, unifying different religions across its territory into a homogeneous form of paganism.
Rousseau previously made an analogy between religion and politics when he explained how lawgivers convince people to see themselves as a community and form a social contract. It only seems natural, then, that the first nations would have been religious in nature, and that political beliefs were the same as religious and moral beliefs. Since these values motivated people to fight wars, it becomes clear that they were the foundation of these early nations’ political identities.
Themes
Christianity was unique in “separating the theological system from the political,” but it still had political effects, spreading “violent despotism” across the globe and leading to “an endless conflict of jurisdiction” between states and churches in Christian nations. “The clergy” is simultaneously legislative and executive, meaning that Christian countries have “two powers, two sovereigns.” Rousseau praises Hobbes for “reuniting” the church and state, but concludes that Christianity’s “dominant spirit” would put the prince’s interest before the state’s. While all states have been founded on religion, Rousseau concludes, “Christian law” does not foster “a robust constitution of the state.”
Rousseau’s criticism of Christianity was bold for his age—indeed, it got him kicked out of both France and Switzerland. He ties the devastating effects of Christian imperialism, from the Crusades through colonialism, to the way it was deployed in political contexts, but he notes that this did not result from Christian doctrine itself (unlike the earlier nations’ conquests, which were inseparable from their religious beliefs). In this sense, when Rousseau talks about “separating the theological system from the political,” he means that Christianity made it possible for people to see a distinction between the state and the church (although these two institutions remained linked for many centuries). While this made it possible for people to think about statecraft and government in strictly secular terms for the first time, it also created an awkward division of powers, in which neither the church nor the state had clear authority (and neither of those institutions’ authority was, in Rousseau’s terms, legitimate).
Themes
Rousseau resolves to analyze religion more closely. Religion takes two forms: people’s internal beliefs, or “the religion of the man,” and religion as an institutionalized social practice tied to the nation and codified through laws, or “the religion of the citizen.” Some religions create a mixed society with two different institutions acting as the state—the sovereign and the church—which Rousseau considers “so manifestly bad” that it is not worth taking seriously. “The religion of the citizen” is beneficial because it makes people worship the law and nation, but it is also “based on error and lies,” since it promotes ritual instead of virtue and drives people to commit horrible acts of “holy” violence.
Essentially, Rousseau’s “religion of the man” refers to individual religious practices that have no effect on people’s public lives: someone can pray, read a holy book, or believe whatever they want about the nature of God without this determining how they act in their capacity as a citizen. Since Christian churches represent this kind of religion and do not clearly direct people to take an interest in politics or invest in their communities, combining the church with the state creates the awkward mixed society that Rousseau considers “manifestly bad.” But Rousseau sees “the religion of the citizen,” while flawed, as nonetheless providing a roadmap for how a national culture can be developed, institutionalized, and used to make people actively fulfill their duties as citizens and members of the sovereign community. However, Rousseau implies in his critique of “holy” violence, citizens need to learn to worship and revere their own nation, rather than a god whom they believe their nation serves.
Themes
According to Rousseau, the true “religion of the man” is an ancient, “altogether different” form of Christianity, which considers everyone equal before God. But this Christianity focuses so much on spirituality that it would dissuade people from participating in politics. A hypothetical “society of true Christians” could not hold together, since people would only care about remaining morally pure—not about the “success of [their] deeds.” Malicious people could “exploit [their] pious compatriots” to seize power and wealth, and a Christian army would simply trust in God’s plan and be indifferent to victory or defeat (and so would be easily conquered). Christianity encourages “servitude and submission,” which creates the conditions for tyranny to form. “Christian troops” who fight in holy wars are not true Christians, but rather “soldiers of the priests”—in reality, true Christians would never fight a holy war.
Rousseau distinguishes the Christians who live in his time from the “true Christians” who followed the religion in a more monastic, pious way. (Unsurprisingly, this also provoked ire among his contemporaries.) He notes that if these “true Christians” are entirely focused on their individual moral purity, not only will they never fight in a holy war, but they will also never get motivated to participate in politics. This means that Christianity cannot be the basis for a legitimate or free society. In fact, Rousseau seems to think that “true” Christianity undermines people’s inherent freedom and drive to self-preservation by teaching them to be passive and self-effacing. In contrast, a belief system adequate for citizens of the state must emphasize the importance of taking active responsibility for the well-being of the community and doing anything necessary to defend its unity.
Themes
Get the entire The Social Contract LitChart as a printable PDF.
Since the social contract can only obligate subjects to act when it is necessary for the public interest, the sovereign cannot control citizens’ personal religious beliefs. But it can and should establish a set of beliefs that good and loyal citizens must hold—anyone who does not believe in them can be “banish[ed] from the state,” and anyone who lies about believing in them can be “put to death.” These “articles” should include “positive dogmas” like believing in God’s existence, the rightness of rewarding good action and punishing evil action, and “the sanctity of the social contract and the law.” There should also be one “negative dogma,” which is “no intolerance.” Specifically, intolerance comes from religions that lead believers to see nonbelievers as “damned,” and such intolerant forms of religion should be banned.
Throughout The Social Contract, Rousseau has continually emphasized the importance of keeping citizens engaged in politics and motivated to pursue the general will through a culture of civic responsibility and shared moral values. This is what he was getting at the whole time: instead of dedicating themselves to religion, people should dedicate themselves to their nation. By creating a “civil religion” and institutionalizing participation in politics, a sovereign body can preemptively defend itself against corruption and attempts to usurp its power. Curiously, Rosseau includes the existence of God as one of his mandatory beliefs, and it is unclear whether this reflects his own Christianity or is simply an attempt to avoid scandalizing his opponents. Finally, Rousseau’s single “negative dogma” is paradoxical, because it means that a government should be intolerant of intolerance. However, this is necessary to prevent people from discounting other people’s humanity (by, for instance, calling them “damned”) and failing to consider their interests as part of the general will. In fact, this principle of tolerance has become a foundational idea of most contemporary liberal democracies.
Themes
