FAQ   |   Reputable   |   Polls   |   Live Chat!

Researching The Social Contract in Western Politics



EssayChat / Jun 26, 2017

Western political theory remains significantly informed by the social conditions in which it exists. While the social environment has changed considerably since the birth of Western politics, the dominant links between political theory and the cultural environment have been comparatively static. Social contract theory, by extension, has been a pillar of Western political theory for centuries, with only the manifestations of social contract changing as the sociopolitical landscape of the world evolves; the theoretical link between social contract and Western politics remains fundamentally similar to the way it existed for the Ancient Greeks.

Political Theory in the West: A Brief History

Western Political StudiesThe roots of Western political philosophy are grounded in fifth century B.C. Greece, with a small community of political theorists emerging during the last two centuries. The somewhat abstract notions of equality, freedom, and representation have remained basic currents in Western politics over time, though social equality was virtually non-existent in Greek civilization. Classical political theory, articulated initially by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, asserted that governments were obliged to formulate principles geared toward the cultivation of the common good. Social justice was achieved through the knowledge of governments regarding their people in conjunction with the equal representation of those people in forming policy; this equal representation was enigmatic however, particularly during the advent of Western civilization. Arguably, the same dearth of equality that widened the gap between theory and practice for Greek politicians exists in the modern world.

Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke all embraced classical political theory, adapting it to their world through the additions of religion, logic, and political participation, respectively. Western political theory as it exists at the end of the dawning decade in the twenty-first century is only varied marginally from its form within Ancient Greek civilization, with increased emphasis on the participation of the people in forging meaningful policies (Seth 2001: 76). The balance of power between government and citizens varies slightly in accordance to liberal and conservative perceptions of democracy, but political stability, in general, is maintained by limited government and maximum freedom for the individual. Socialism, Marxism, and Communism, all Western in their origins, have suffered fundamental failure in Western nations due to their misalignment with capitalism, leaving varying degrees of democracy as the dominant political philosophy in the modern West.

The Social Contract

At the heart of contemporary politics in the West is the notion of social contract, or the common, implicit agreement regarding the dual roles of the populous and the government. Social contracts can be framed as horizontal, or among citizens, and vertical, or among various socioeconomic segments of a community and the government. Generally assumed to be rational, specifically rational agreements between rational persons, social contracts are the proverbial blueprint for a functioning society.

The role played by rationality is a significant one in social contract discourse, as it assumes that the contract will transcend all things irrational and unequal. Social contracts are a universal, social prescription for remedying a community's ills, with politics providing a vehicle for manifesting those contracts. Those engaging in a social contract, by extension, must have a mutually agreed upon political premise from which to work (Milde 1999: 93); in the absence of such a foundation, social contracts are inherently unequal.

Social contract theory was formalized in order to articulate how policy can rationally balance competing interests and motivate those engaged in a contract toward a common goal. Vertical contracts then charge citizens to abide by rules and within the constraints asserted and enforced by the government. The assumption is that those rules are rational, and that the government has an equal charge to ensure equality and coordinate public interests in policy (Milde 1999: 94).

The role of social contracts in an increasingly diverse society is a complex one, however. In her article entitled "Unreasonable Foundations," Milde writes that "this sounds too good to be true. Even a cursory glance at contemporary societies reveals that they are characterized by an extensive, often expanding diversity of views on fundamental questions. It seems highly improbable that all the citizens of a state could actually come to consent to all of its laws, institutions, and practices" (1999: 94). In answer to competing interests, social contract theorists have asserted that politics should be geared toward actualizing certain, universal, ideal conditions.

Social Contracts and Human Rights

These universal conditions ground international policy, in particular. Like Western political theory, the notion of human rights can be traced back to the Ancient Greeks. It was the atrocities of World War II, however, that catalyzed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, with human rights then deeply informing political discourse in both the domestic and international realms for Western nations.

The social contract between State and citizen is grounded in the protection and rational recognition of human rights, in which states act to respect and protect the human rights of citizens and, in turn, citizens act in accordance with the rules set forth by the state in order to protect those rights (Francis 2010: 182). The notion that human beings have innate, natural rights grounds both social contract theory as well as international policies, as common ground is essential for social contracts and international policies. In short, both social contract theory and international politics demand that parties concerned agree on that which is rational, and human rights laws provide the rationality.

The social contract is a set of promises made by the state to the citizen and by the citizen to the state in return (Kirstein and Voigt 2006: 864). Contemporary Western states are obliged to provide their citizens with human rights protections, and the role of these states in providing the same protections to other, developing nations is a much contested one; and yet, the assertion that human rights are universally applicable in every country across the globe cites that human rights-based social contracts should exist, even when they do not.

Social Contracts and International Politics

International politics are grounded in Western political theory, with the founding nations of the UN being Western sovereigns. At the crux of international policy is human rights and, by extension, social contracts. Particularly when the implicit social contracts between citizens and states are breached, by either party, international organizations are charged to act. Specifically, the international authority functions according to two, primary objectives with respect to social contracts; they enforce social contracts between states and citizens, taking action when a state fails to fulfill promises. Additionally, they enhance the efficiency of the market for social contracts by taking required actions against states who attempt to interfere with human rights legislation.

The international authority is then an enforcer, addressing disputes and abuses. All humanitarian intervention is grounded in the notions that human rights exist (1), the social contract between state and citizen is framed by those rights (2), and that the contract has at least partially been breached (3) (Francis 2010: 184). There is then a broader social contract between individual nation-states and the international authority, with the common ground for the contract being human rights recognition and preservation.

Social Contracts and National Politics

Similarly but on a smaller scale, national politics in Western nations are rooted in the security offered by the state in return for the collectively good behavior of citizens. The security offered by the state manifests in a myriad of forms, including welfare payments, immigration policy, and other widely contested policies. The notion of equality rooted in Western political theory is critical within national politics, as it suggests that the social contract is similar between the state and those on all socioeconomic levels.

Inherent to critiques of national policies is the social contract theme of mutual benefit. For example, the assumption is that welfare policies benefit the state by countering the burden of poverty on society. In parallel, welfare policies benefit the individual by providing food, shelter, and money to the disadvantaged. However, the benefit to middle and upper classes is more ambiguous, and births skepticism regarding the nature of equality and social contract theory (Moss 2001: 2).

Horizontal social contracts then become significant, as those not directly benefiting from a given policy are charged to uphold a social contract with disadvantaged citizens without an apparent incentive to do so. The intergenerational social contract, for example, asserts that younger populations have an obligation to sustain protections of older populations, with a significant amount of time separating the reception of mutual benefits (Lynch 2008: 65). Overall, the social contracts in national politics raise significant questions regarding equality and mutual benefit, in a way that those of international politics do not.

Conclusions

The modern world is significantly more politically complex than that of the Ancient Greeks. Globalization has highlighted sociocultural disparities on the national and international scales, with the mutual ground for social contracts subsequently being much more elusive at present than it was even a century ago. Social contracts continue to deeply inform Western political theory, however, with liberal perceptions generally favoring horizontal contracts more so than conservative perceptions. Vertical social contracts founded on human rights are integral to the international realm, with an implicit set of rational assumptions grounding both contract structures.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Francis, Andrew M. 2010. An Essay on Human Rights and the Market for Social Contracts. Southern Economic Journal 77, no. 1: 181-185.

Kirstein, Roland, and Stefan Voigt. 2006. The Violent and the Weak: When Dictators Care about Social Contracts. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 65, no. 4: 863-883.

Lynch, Frederick R. 2008. Immigrants and the Politics of Aging Boomers: Renewed Reciprocity or 'blade Runner' Society?. Generations 32, no. 4: 64-72.

Milde, Michael. 1999. Unreasonable Foundations: David Gauthier on Property Rights, Rationality, and the Social Contract. Social Theory and Practice 25, no. 1: 93.

Moss, Jeremy. 2001. The Ethics and Politics of Mutual Obligation. Australian Journal of Social Issues 36, no. 1: 1.

Saavedra, Jaime, and Mariano Tommasi. 2007. Informality, the State and the Social Contract in Latin America: a Preliminary Exploration. International Labour Review 146, no. 3/4: 279-284.

Seth, Sanjay. 2001. A Critique of Disciplinary Reason: The Limits of Political Theory. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 26, no. 1: 73.

Tienda, Marta. 2002. Demography and the Social Contract. Demography 39, no. 4: 587-594.


Home   |   About   |   Privacy     References:   Writing Guide   |   Content Writers   |   Freelance Writing