Historical and sociological possibility

The critics invariably doubt the historical possibility of such a social contract. It is said that historical and sociological evidences do not support validity of the state of nature. By challenging the very basic assumption of the theory about the existence of the state of nature, the critics push the social contract theory in the realm of speculative theory. As the advocates of the Historical–Evolutionary theory of origin and development of the State suggests, it may not be feasible to divide evolution of social and political organizations into pre-and post-social. Men are incapable of living otherwise than in society. It can be argued that human beings, due to their associative and social nature, cannot be said to have existed in the state of nature, as mere individuals competing (Hobbes), deciding on their own (Locke) and wandering aimlessly (Rousseau). A more logical position could be to see the State as a continuous and gradual evolution, instead of a one-time transition as a result of the social contract.

Henry Maine, who supports the Historical-Evolutionary theory, pronounced the social contract theory as ‘worthless’. Some of the instances that are cited as providing historical proof of a covenant are The Mayflower Compact (1620) and The Constitution of Massachusetts (1780). However, upon examination these are found to be by those men who were already conscious of political authority and the concept of the State and should not be taken as an example of founding a new commonwealth.⁵⁵ The Mayflower episode relates to the visit of 101 British emigrants in the ship Mayflower to America who ‘reached Cape Cod, in what was to be Massachusetts, in 1620.’⁵⁶

However, before landing, they ‘entered into an agreement whereby they “solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and of one another, covenanted and combined themselves together into a civil body politic for better ordering and preservation”…’ Similarly, the constitution of Massachusetts (1780) ‘which asserted, “that the people have entered into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other” is sometimes cited as furnishing historical proof’.⁵⁷ These examples hardly provide any indication of the social contract that Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau talked about, as these men were already familiar with the institution of government. Garner says, ‘the transaction was nothing more than the extension of an already existing state to a country not yet inhabited by civilized races. The Mayflower covenants, in fact, expressly acknowledged that they were “loyal subjects” of an existing sovereign’. Thus, historically, the social contract remains in speculative realm.

Sociological, anthropological and historical researches by Morgan, Maine and others suggest a multi-factor possibility of emergence of the State and political institutions. In fact, Maine has maintained that evolution has been from status to contract, the latter being a very late development. As such, the idea of contract cannot be treated as having existed from the beginning itself.