<i>The Use and Abuse of Rousseau’s</i> The Social Contract <i>in Modern Political Thought: Toward a Reinterpretation</i>

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract remains the source of much controversy. It is one of the first and most prominent formulations of the doctrine of popular sovereignty. It outlines the (self-)constitution of the sovereign and inalienable authority of the people over itself and any form of government, institutions, and laws. However, it has also been the subject of persistent critique by liberals ever since the French Revolution, alleging that its reproduction of the conceptual form of absolutism (“sovereignty”) would inevitably also end up reproducing its despotic political form and undermine individual liberties. Rousseau’s doctrine has thus been identified as the intellectual genesis of the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, twentieth century totalitarianisms, and contemporary populism. This article contributes a genealogy and critique of these post-revolutionary critiques of Rousseau’s Social Contract, followed by a historical recontextualization and reinterpretation of this classical work, which shows that these widespread critiques are mistaken and that this work constitutes a highly unique and insightful analysis of the formation and implications of popular sovereignty, which remains relevant to this day.