Discuss the relative importance of the Individual Will and the Will of the State, as illustrated by Rousseau's philosophy, and David's "The Death of Socrates"

David's "The Death of Socrates" illustrates a number of examples of the individual will at odds with the will of the state.

According to the Metropolitan Museum of Art Guide, "Socrates had been bitterly critical of Athenian society ... he chose to die by his own hand rather than renounce his beliefs."

So Socrates' individual will is to teach his beliefs. The will of the state is that he renounce those beliefs.

In the painting, Socrates is central, prominently lit, seated in a dynamic pose, with one hand pointing skywards, obviously still animated and teaching his beliefs even while he reaches for the poisoned chalice. His white toga and naked torso emphasise his heroic stature by echoing classical Greek images. With his disciples around him, gazing up at him, he appears almost godlike.

Notice the chains on the floor, highlighting the fact that Socrates himself is not chained. He is acting under the strength of his own will - there is no suggestion of his being forced.

So, we have this noble rebellion, standing firm by your beliefs, even at the cost of your own life. In pre-revolutionary France (this painting is dated 1787), heroism against the state had wide appeal, even if not stated openly, but implied by paintings such as this.

Looking at the other figures in the painting, we see more examples of the conflict of individual wills. Handing Socrates the hemlock is an obviously distraught figure. He looks away and covers his eyes, horrified at what he is doing. His toga is red, a strong colour. His stance is heroic, and much flesh is exposed. He is also well lit. Second to Socrates himself, he is the most prominent figure in the painting, and is another example of an individual doing what is right, even though it pains him.

Around Socrates we have an assortment of lesser characters. A group is clustered together to one side, away from immediate prominence. They are less lit, less strongly coloured, and in less heroic (although often dramatic) poses. One is offering Socrates support and reassurance, one appears to be pleading, a number are simply being distraught, but all are reacting somehow to the conflict of their individual will. Some are succumbing to it, and begging Socrates not to go through with his action, while some are being strong in the face of their doubts.

The painting's perspective draws our eye into the distance, where three figures are leaving. One has his head in his hands, one is turning to wave forlornly. Who these figures are is not clear. They could be representatives of the state, who brought the poison and are leaving Socrates to get on with it. If so, it is interesting to notice that even though they serve the will of the state, they too are suffering conflicts with their individual will.

One other figure worthy of note is Plato, seated at the foot of the bed. He appears more calm, more introspective than the others. His writing implements lie neglected by his feet. Perhaps he is contemplating a time when he too must make the same choice as Socrates.

All this heroic rebellion is in stark contrast with Rousseau's philosophy, which has no time for any sort of disagreement with the state.

In 'The Social Contract', Rousseau advances the idea of the General Will. If the Individual Will (or "Particular Will") is a person acting purely on their own interest, and the Will of All is the sum of all these interests (i.e. what must be done in order to fully meet each individual's Particular Will), then the General Will is what must be done in order to meet everyone's best interests, and the best interests of society as a whole.

If a state and all its citizens adopt the General Will, then the state's authority becomes legitimate (as everyone supports it), and no citizen is oppressed (as no-one is forced to do anything against their will). Everyone would cease to act in accordance with their base desires, and would act instead for the good of all. This, Rousseau claimed, elevated man from savage to noble, and from slavery to freedom.

For this to work however, requires a high degree of conformity. "The more harmony reigns ... the closer opinions come to unanimity, the more dominant too is the General Will". Every citizen must surrender their individual will, and act solely for the good of all. In the book 'Émile', Rousseau places great emphasis on bringing up children to not think of themselves as individuals. "Good social institutions are those best fitted to make a man ... exchange his independence for dependence … so that he no longer regards himself as one, but as a part of the whole".

Dissension of any sort was given no sympathy. Once the General Will has been established all citizens are obliged to adhere to it. Anyone not adhering to it should be forced, as (so he states) "This means merely that he will be forced to be free".

There are three main reasons why one might disagree with the General Will, although Rousseau only acknowledges two.

1) A person is being obstinate, and insists on following their individual will.

2) A person is simply mistaken about what they perceive the General Will to be. This person will usually accept the General Will when their error has been pointed out.

3) A person genuinely and honestly believes that the General Will is wrong, or that it has been incorrectly ascertained.

This third form of dissension is ignored by Rousseau. The idea of individuals, or minority groups disagreeing with the General Will was an anathema to the entire core of his philosophy, and he went to great lengths to describe means of discouraging it through upbringing, censorship and religion.

Compare this to the case of Socrates.

David portrays Socrates as a wise and noble man, heroically dying for his beliefs rather than submit to the will of the state. Rousseau is quite insistent that no man has the right to oppose the will of the state, as it is for the good of all.

David portrays the drama, the emotional impact of the conflicts between individual wills and the will of the state, with godlike heroes defying a faceless evil. Rousseau advocates a uniform state, with everyone acting towards a common agenda. He promotes conformity, order, and surrender of the self. Individualism and emotional drama are discouraged.

One could argue that the difference is dependant on the legitimacy of the state. In 1787, the French monarchy was beginning to be widely seen as an illegitimate form of government. Thus, portrayals of noble individuals rebelling against the will of an oppressive state were popular. Rousseau was describing a legitimate government, and indeed after the French monarchy was overthrown, the Revolutionary government saw themselves as legitimate. In these cases, rebelling individuals changed from noble heroes to enemies of the state, and were punishable by extreme sanction.

Illustrations
• Colour plate 44 "The Death of Socrates" by David.
Texts
• Block 3
• Extracts from Rousseau's 'The Social Contract', and 'Émile'.
Audio Cassettes
• AC4
TV programmes
• TV10 - Rousseau in Africa
• TV11 - Minorities in a Democracy