How did Rousseau’s genuine social contract differ from the social arrangement he criticized in Discourse on the Origin of Inequality?

In his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Jean-Jacques Rousseau criticized existing civil society as a fraudulent social arrangement that emerged to protect the property and interests of the wealthy, effectively legitimizing inequality and keeping the poor dispossessed. He argued that this society was a departure from the natural state, where humans were solitary, free, and equal, and that it introduced vices and dependencies that corrupted human nature.1

In contrast, Rousseau’s The Social Contract proposes a genuine social contract designed to recover human liberty. This model differs from the earlier arrangement in several key ways:1

• Nature of the Pact: Instead of a contract that serves the interests of the powerful, the genuine social contract involves individuals totally alienating themselves and their rights to the whole community.1
• Exchange of Rights: Individuals surrender their natural rights in exchange for legitimate civil rights that are enforced by the collective force of the community, rather than relying on individual might.1
• The General Will: The society is united by the general will, which aims at the common good. By obeying laws that are self-imposed through this collective will, individuals achieve a higher form of freedom—true political or republican liberty—rather than being in the "chains" of the status quo.12