Rousseau casts the social contract both as a genealogical account of how governments arise and a prescriptive account of how they ought to be made. He can also be read as casting the social contract in a critical role: showing how society would organize itself in certain counterfactual circumstances. A merely hypothetical contract can serve the critical role of reconciling us to our actual circumstances while at the same time specifying what reforms are demanded. Rousseau’s social contract creates a general will, volonté générale, which is not an aggregation of separate wills, nor is it simply the immersion of several selves into a “hive mind.” It is what each wills, even those who disagree with the majority, which announces what the general will wills. Especially interesting is the act by which the general will arises: Citizens abstract from their own selves and situations and surrender all their rights to the political community. And “since each gives himself entirely, the condition is equal for all, and [thus] no one has any interest in making it burdensome to the rest.” Rousseau’s social contract requires there be a civil religion intolerant of those who believe their own faith to be the unique way to salvation.

Rousseau took up the challenge of explaining the origin of social inequality. Primitive humans lived simply and independently. Their natural amour de soi – self-love – was tempered by natural pity. As families connected into tribes, and nomads settled into stationary dwellings, a new sentiment arose: amour propre, or self-esteem. People began to compare themselves to one another and to seek attention. Natural pity was eclipsed by the urge to be admired and to dominate. The introduction of agriculture brought with it private property and competitive accumulation. Human society magnified modest natural inequalities, and immiserated itself in the process. Rousseau’s thought showed a sunnier side in his Du Contrat Sociale: the social contract. He professed not to know how humanity had come to be “everywhere” in chains, but proceeded to show how that condition was legitimate. The device was the social contract, to which individuals bring their possessions in order to secure them as property.

The increasing acceptance of marquee “liberal” doctrines such as liberty of conscience, limited government, and universal adult suffrage occurred mainly during a period in which social contract theory was dormant and other philosophies – Hegelianism, Marxism, and utilitarianism –largely prevailed in the West. If Rawls’s social contract apparatus can deliver something beyond mere “yea-saying” to the liberal consensus, one could confidently say that contract doctrine has helped. Substantive political equality might be that something, but its delivery is still contested.

Hobbes argues that in a “condition of meer nature,” lacking a common power, reason requires that we appoint one, lest our lives be “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” No covenant of peace can be effective without a Sovereign arbiter to enforce it. Therefore, reason requires each of us to surrender the natural right to judge for ourselves, and to appoint a Sovereign. An effective Sovereign must have authority to determine religious practice and to raise an army – precisely the powers the “Roundhead” rebels had denied Charles I.