Here is my first short paper, for History class! I wasn’t sure how to attach a document to a blog post, so I just copy/pasted it. Let me know what you think! And if you do know how to attach docs to a blogpost, gimme some pointers. 😊
Ajia Perryman
Dr. D. Messenger
HY of Western Civilization
10 September 2025
What goes on behind the bars within an eradicated mind? This is the question my mind asks when I try to imagine a world where an Enlightenment had not occurred. The following essay is in response to “The Social Contract”, written by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1694-1778); found in Perspectives from the Past Vol 2. I will expound on my point of view, which considers the introduction of “The Social Contract” as being one of the most pivotal points in world history and during the Enlightenment era.
‘The Social Contract’ in a nutshell explains the need for a mutual agreement between man and society. It goes into detail about the natural choices of man, from self-preservation, to having mastery over others (in form of King, master, or slave). The contract is said to have preserved freedom and equality. It breaks down the need for a mutual respect and participation from man within his community. The idea that a man is either a King or possibly the slave to another man simply because of when and where he was born, and another man's decision to enslave him, for his own personal gain, was considered normal but the enlightened begged to differ.
In “The Social Contract” Book 1 Chapter 3: Rights of The Strongest; the text explores the idea that the strongest must be the ones to call the shots and decide who serves what role. “For, if force creates right the effect changes with the cause; every force that is greater that the 1st succeeds its right...if we must obey perforce, there is no need to obey because we ought; and if we are not forced to obey, we are under no obligation to do so. Clearly the word “right” adds nothing to force: in this connection it means absolutely nothing. ” “If an individual can alienate his liberty and make himself the slave of a master, why could not a whole people do the same and make himself subject to a king?” Grotius asked. This question opens the idea that a man is either who he is told to be, or who he decides he is and will become.
The timing (1762) of “The Social Contact” challenged the very core of the church and nobles’ power, their word. When men collectively became enlightened and aware of their power to resist or rebel against what does not align with their own best interest, it gave power to the people. It seems as simple as the golden rule, we should simply treat others how we would like to be treated. But we needed it in writing and agreed upon between groups of people with thoughtful leaders. The document states that it is unnatural for men to have rights, therefore they must be discussed and agreed upon, and mutually applicable to all. “All power comes from God, I admit, but so does all the sickness; does that mean we are forbidden to call in the doctor?” Could this mean that maybe sometimes it's best to listen to others who have studied more? If we avoid the doctor when we are ill, do we become more ill? The ignorance that seeps from the unwillingness to see things from the perspective of the next man can be dangerous.
Although we are considered free to think as students today in 2025, there was a time (as noted in The Social Contract) when people were killed for it & there are great thinkers, artists, scholars & philosophers who continued to speak out for centuries. Therefore, we should continue to think for ourselves and enlighten those who are unaware of the ability to do so, to remain as free a people as possible.
Feedback: A very good analysis- and a great writing style that really captures the reader- well done! Footnotes a bit incomplete- see my comment Grade A-