How did Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s social-contract theory differ from Locke’s?

While both John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau utilized the social contract to justify political authority, their theories reflect fundamentally different views on the relationship between the individual and the state.12

Key Differences in Theory

• Individualism vs. Collectivism: Locke’s philosophy is rooted in systematic individualism, where the state exists to protect the pre-existing natural rights of individuals, specifically life, liberty, and property. In contrast, Rousseau’s approach is organic and collectivist; he argues that individuals surrender their natural independence to the community, becoming part of a "moral person" where individual rights are subordinate to the general will.12
• Purpose of the State: For Locke, the state is an impartial arbiter created to protect rights and resolve disputes. For Rousseau, the state is the vehicle through which citizens achieve "true political, or republican, liberty" by obeying laws they prescribe for themselves collectively.13
• Citizenship: Locke viewed the person as a "natural person" with inherent rights. Rousseau shifted the focus to the "citizen," emphasizing that one’s true freedom is realized only through active participation in the collective common good.21

While Locke’s model serves as a foundation for liberalism and the protection of civil liberties, Rousseau’s theory emphasizes the moral unity of the state and the obligation of citizens to the collective interest.12