The theory of a “social contract” plays a crucial role in American history, and in much of contemporary political theory.  This idea of a social contract typically goes well beyond merely “the consent of the governed,” to embrace the stronger possibility that individuals could come together — whether at a literal moment in historical time, or merely in imagined possibility — and choose to submit themselves to political or governmental authority.

In this evening’s program, we’ll trace the main currents of this idea from early incarnations in the work of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, through influential 20th-century philosophers like John Rawls, to the present.  We’ll examine how historical circumstances shaped each thinker’s account and reflect on how those historical factors continue to reverberate in the present.

As we explore different forms of the theory, and its application in contemporary political life, we’ll pay special attention to some of the tensions and contradictions that seem built into it, including:

• Between treating human beings as they are, and as they might be (or, as they might once have been)
• Between hypothetical and actual consent (that is, between what an imagined rational agent should agree to, and what real flesh-and-blood people actually have agreed to)
• Between the principles for establishing a constitution (or form of government) and questions of specific laws or policies.

We’ll raise the difficult question of whether these challenges within social contract theory might, paradoxically, make it harder for us to live well together today, and we’ll consider how these challenges might be addressed in ways that allow for human diversity and flourishing.

(As always, free and open to all.)