Concept Blog #2

I always like to start off my blogs in kind of a different manner. I think that because this is a more direct reflection of myself, and my process of reasoning, I think of it as a more intimate and personal look into the person I am, and almost in a sense as if we (you being the reader and myself of course), are having a conversation. I think that because this class is not one in which we get the opportunity to make a connection and create relationships, we do so by blogging and sharing our ideas. With that being said, the topic that I decided to expand upon for this component of our semester is the idea of the Social Contract and my thoughts that at one point, this could be adopted into civilization and society, but of course with manipulations and a more general understanding of the gist of the concept.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau suggested an idea in the late 1760’s that at the time may not have sounded as bazaar and totally incomprehensible as it does today. The idea was one in which the general population would rule themselves. Society as a whole would be compelled by one another, and by the inner moral reasoning of one’s self, to act respectfully of others, respect their property, respect the social order, and generally be a law-abiding citizen with only the best and purest intentions in life. Obviously in the society that we find ourselves today, this would not be possible.

I had the opportunity in the previous year to take some political science classes at the university of New Mexico, where I was exposed to the workings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the idea of the Social Contract. With that being said, it is unfortunate but it would not work in our society today. People are too driven by selfishness and their own personal agendas and motivations that in our world today, it is just not something that can be done. We say that we have good intentions and we do have good intentions in society but we don’t. We are driven by our greed and by the opportunity to beat someone else or win something compared to somewhere else. Whereas the entire basis of the Social Contract is as a group and as a society we can come together and maker a difference in the sense that we don’t need the idea of intimidation to behave properly. Rousseau states that it should be human nature to want to help one another and benefit society to provide a better understanding of why we are here on earth, and why we need to help one another. But unfortunately, that will never happen, because the Social Contract realistically isn’t plausible, because of our willingness and ability to hurt someone in the process while winning or beating someone else. Really, the only thing that I think is true in what Jean-Jacques Rousseau was trying to state was the idea of a cohesive group of people that are working towards a certain goal or achieve something in the long run. You can witness this in society today. There are small pockets and small clicks of a Social Contract theory based group, such as sport, political affiliation, racial (ethnic) affiliations, and religious affiliations. These are small social based groups that I think that people could fall into the Social Contract theory, because as I have mentioned earlier, they are working to achieve a certain and common goal. They are working towards the idea of protecting each other and only doing what is beneficial for one another in achieving this goal. The Social Contract’s ultimate goal was to have a self-sustaining life, where there was no necessity for war, and for anger and for stealing; all aspects of life that are not beneficial and productive to life and why we are here. They are all things that take away from the fact that we are here possibly to do something great with our lives and help others. This should make life an easier and more understandable place. However, when you start to add stealing, greed, and the killing of other people to prove a point is not something that contributes positively to the ultimate goal. And this could possibly be true, as you look back and think that this common goal may not be the same for everyone. Not everyone wants to achieve the same things in life, and therefore the Social Contract cannot apply directly to everyone in life. People have different agendas, and that is not saying that one agenda is more productive throughout life than the other, because again, it comes back to personal belief systems and personal moral understanding. I would never want to work my entire life towards something that I have no passion for and something that I do not truly believe in. People are clearly motivated and driven to achieve different things in life, and for Jean-Jacques Rousseau to suggest an idea that we can govern ourselves just with the best intentions possible could never work.

Again, this would never work because when you are compiling and creating this, you cannot take into consideration greed, and the ever-constant opportunity to one-up someone else. As much as we say we may not like it, we as human beings like coming in first place, and like beating other people in competitions. There is no sharing of anything in society today. It is unfortunate, but it is just human nature. Even in the animal kingdom, you do not see tigers sharing their prey with a lion. It is simply a dog-eat-dog world, and I am going to do everything in my power to get there and take that, and unfortunately, you are going to have to stop me. That may sound violent, and that may sound unnecessary, but Rousseau had a very positive perspective and interpretation of what life could be, it just wasn’t possible.

Quickly going back to my time and studies at the University of New Mexico, this theory was a basic building block of many of our conversations in International Affairs, and basic Governmental Operations. It was discussed in the sense that yes, it would save money, and resources, and human manpower; unfortunately it just is not plausible because we are too self-centered. If someone were to get hurt, and it has been showed on TV, and magazines, and in novels, that if you are on a mission and you have an appointment at 12 o’clock, and someone falls deathly ill in front of you at 11:45, 9 out of 10 times you are not going to stop to help that person.

The main reason behind this is because there are just too many opportunities and too many people that want to take advantage of someone’s vulnerability. The idea and the thought that there could possibly be a risk in picking someone up off the side of the road with a broken car, thus looking out for one another has taken a completely different meaning in our society today. Ultimately, you need to look out for yourself because there are too many traps, and too many ploys to contribute to these vulnerabilities that we may have put ourselves in over time but at this point in society and time, it is not a society that we can take the chance of risking our own well being for the unknown. This leads right into the idea of a safety net and the safety mechanism in the sense that people are not secure enough in their abilities to fend for themselves. I think that the Social Contract theory leaves people vulnerable for their kindness, and the idea that we have been conditioned over time to look after ones self, instead of a group as a whole.

I do think however, that the Social Contract theory is effective in those small clicks and groups. You can look at it from the perspective of Police Officers, and Firefighters, and Paramedics (I wouldn’t go as far as to say politicians, because hey, that’s a scary thought) but in these professions, there is an understanding and a willingness to sacrifice your own personal well being for the betterment of a societal whole. You don’t find this in any other profession in my opinion. They are willing to jump into a burning building to save you, however, I will not make this correlation when these officers are off duty. Yes they may have been conditioned over time to take affirmative action, because there is still selfishness tendencies that are within us. And this again is not a choice; it is just within all of us. It is part of us, and our understanding of the world and our lives. It is the way we have grown and developed as a society. We have been told since we were born, that we need to stand up for what we believe and for our rights to be who we are.

Ultimately, I would like to end this blog by saying that yes there are certain aspects of our lives today that abide by certain aspects of the Social Contract Theory and ones in which affect our lives and world positively as a societal whole. I also believe that there is Socially Contracted clicks in our society today. These range from religious, ethnic, and sport related field where these people are willing to protect their own. From a negative perspective, white supremacists are willing to protect one another, and respect one another for the betterment of their own, but not as a societal whole. In sport, there is an understanding of cheating in practice and cheating in certain aspects of development only hurt the team, and yes there are certain aspects of that where greed, and the hunger for self wealth is still present, but there is a bigger and stronger hunger in these social clicks for not hurting the whole, whereas there isn’t that understanding in some regards. There is the lacking of a societal whole, instead of a societal click.

That is the way I would like to end my blog, and at least expand a little on my perspective of Rousseau’s Social Contract Theory and what he was trying to express.