General will is not just a sum total.

In Volume 2, Chapter 3 of [[social contract theory (e.g. Rousseau's)]], he states that the general will is not a simple sum of individual special wills, but rather an independent will oriented toward the public good. The following is a passage that demonstrates this intention.

「Il est essentiel que la volonté générale soit indépendante de toute volonté particulière, qu’elle soit délibérée par une somme qui n’est point une somme mathématique des volontés particulières, mais un agrégat purgé de toute partialité individuelle.」 (the general will is essential to be independent of all special wills and should be carefully deliberated as a pure assembly, stripped of any personal bias, not merely as a mathematical sum of special wills (emphasis added).

In this sentence, Rousseau states that the general will is not a mere sum, but a “pure aggregate” that is established in a way that excludes individual interests and biases. In other words, he emphasizes that the general will is not the sum of the individual wills as they are, but rather the coordination and purification of each will so that it reflects the public interest.

Was there a majority rule of voting back then?

In Rousseau’s time, “modern democratic elections” as we know them today were not widespread in 18th century Europe, and the concept of voting in which the entire population participated did not exist. However, in some cities and parliaments, voting by a certain limited number of people did take place. During this period, “majority rule” as a voting method was also used, but it was limited only to the nobility and a few upper classes, and did not involve all citizens.

Rousseau’s Theory of the Social Contract describes the concept of an ideal social contract based on the “general will,” emphasizing voting in which all citizens participate and the process of forming the public will. Although Rousseau held direct democracy as an ideal, it did not exist in reality at the time, and his proposal was only a theoretical model; voting by the general public and majority rule were considered future ideals.

My interpretation is that this means that everyone should be widely involved in decision-making, or that when everyone is widely involved in voting, “majority rule,” which is a mere sum total, will lead to problems such as “mob rule.

This interpretation is a deep understanding of Rousseau’s ideas. His philosophy of the “general will” is intended to be more than simply the participation of a large number of people in voting; it should be established as oriented toward the public good, removing the interests and prejudices of each individual. While everyone’s involvement in decision-making should form a will that is truly based on the public interest, Rousseau was also wary of the problem of popular politics if the process is limited to mere “majority rule.”

From this perspective, it can be said that Rousseau avoided majority rule falling into the mere logic of numbers, and devised the “general will” as a means of deriving the “public good” while taking advantage of differences of opinion.

---

relevance Quoting from Volume 2, Chapter 3, “The general will never errs, but the people often do.

「Il n’est pas impossible qu’une volonté particulière s’accorde sur un point avec la volonté générale ; mais cet accord est accidentel ; et alors même que cet accord serait universel, il ne donnerait point ce qui constitue la volonté générale.」 (It is possible for the special will to coincide with the general will, but this is only a coincidence. Even if this coincidence were universal, it would not constitute the general will.)

---

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/一般意志は単なる合計ではない using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.