Rousseau Versus Mill: Does Collectiveness or Individuality Produce Freedom?

Rousseau and Mill identify two contrasting forces as the means by which a government is formed and maintained. While Rousseau illustrates it as a collective body with one will, but comprised of many persons, Mill defines it as individual liberty, with each person acting on his own will. Ultimately, Rousseau’s collective entity does not effectively maintain itself, as there are too many ways in which it may be refused by its members, overthrown, or dissolved. By virtue of its flaws, it is also ineffective in explaining political nature. By contrast, Mill’s societal form is more rarely conducive to dissent and more easily guarantees freedom. Therefore, it is a strong means of maintaining its members’ allegiance, especially because all citizens have the trait of individual liberty in common. In addition, it seems a potential explanation for political life, due to its logic and its similarities with many present-day governments.

In Rousseau’s ideal, the conflicts caused by people’s varying interests are outweighed by a common interest for the security of themselves and their property, which is lacking in the lawless state of nature. Through the bond of these commonalities, the social contract creates “…in the place of the individual person of each contracting party… an artificial and corporate body… and by this same act that body acquires its unity…”[1] It eradicates individuality. He calls this collective person the general will, which “…alone can direct the forces of the state in accordance with that end which the state has been established to achieve – the common good…”[2] There are several ways Rousseau establishes the general will as the basis for liberty, order, and justice in society.