Political Theory: the Will of All or the General Will?

Rebecca SE Tan

23 July 2022

We extol democracies for upholding the "will" of the people. But what "will" are we aiming for - the Will of All or the General Will? This essay expounds on the differences between the two by referencing Jean-Jacques Rousseau's influential work, "The Social Contract".

The will of all refers to the "sum of particular wills" while the general will is the "common interest" (Rousseau, 172). The general will is derived from the will of all by "[taking] away from the [will of all] the pluses and minuses which cancel one another", such that what remains, the "sum of the differences", is the general will (Rousseau, 172). Hence, while the will of all is simply the addition of all the competing private interests of individuals, the general will balances these separate interests in the context of the whole community, creating a middle ground of compromise that is acceptable for everyone and no one is particularly advantaged or disadvantaged. The "will of all" aggregates the individual pursuit of self-interests and affirms individuality and amour propre.[1] In contrast, the general will transcends the individual's impulse to appetite by dissolving the opposition between individual and society, affirming both individuality and sociality, to gain moral liberty by self-legislation.[2]

In an ideal state, there is no difference between the general will and the will of all, as each individual wills the common good. As social individuals, each member of society "puts in common his person and all his power under the supreme direction of the general will" and "becomes an indivisible part of the whole" (Rousseau, 164), making his personal interest equate to the interest of society. However, in actuality, the will of all deviates from the general will because people pursue their particular will in spite of the good of society. Individuals "detach his own interest from the common interest" and, in the pursuit of an "exclusive advantage … for himself", perceives the "harm done to the State" as relatively small (Rousseau, 228). These pursuits of "private interests" form partial associations and break the unanimity in voting, differentiating the will of all from the general will (Rousseau, 227-228).

Consider the analogy of a group choosing three toppings for a pizza. The "will of all" is the three most popular votes for what individuals want on their pizza, and hence the will of those who happen to agree. By contrast, the "general will" uses the perspective of others to limit and orient the decision-making, such as by removing toppings that people are allergic to, making the pizza a common denominator of preferences, and the will of the collective body. Hence, in an electoral democracy, the will of all is expressed if people "[vote] in one's interests", while the general will is expressed if people "[vote] for… the common good" (Wolff, 79).

In summary, the will of all sums individual answers to the question, "what is best for me, distinct from others in society?" while the general will answers the question, "what is best for society, of which I am a part of?".

Footnotes:

[1] Amour propre: self-love that is dependent on the difference and comparison of oneself to others.

[2] “The people, as Sovereign, make laws expressive of the general will.” (Wolff, 79)

References

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. "The Social Contract." Bromwich, David, et al. Rethinking the Western Tradition. Binghamton, New York: Vail-Ballou Press, 1762. 149-254.

Wolff, Jonathan. An Introduction to Political Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press Inc, 2006.