202
PARTISAN REVIEW
sovereign. Composed of this one order, the nation would possess one sin–
gle will and could therefore deliberate and legislate purposefully and
effectively. "There cannot be one will as long as we permi t three orders,"
he patiently explained. "At best, the three orders might agree. But they will
never constitute
one
nation,
one
representation and
one
common will."
Can twenty-five million people possess one single will? The answer
for Sieyes was "yes." He conceived the Third Estate
not
as a diverse popu–
lation of heterogeneous individuals each acting in his own self-interest, but
rather as a homogeneous mass. This philosopher-politician, more comfort–
able with abstract ideas than with unruly human beings, envisioned all
members of the Third Estate not only as equal but also as like-minded,
sharing the same opinions, ideals, and revolutionary goals. Indeed, the hall–
mark of a citizen was the commonality he shared with other citizens.
Individuals might differ from one another in their private lives, Sieyes
allowed, but those differences occur "beyond the sphere of citizenship."
Significantly, Madison had already criticized in 1787 the leap that
Sieyes made in 1789, that is, the leap from the idea of citizens' equality
before the law to the idea of citizens' similarity in everything else.
"Theoretic politicians," Madison wrote in
Federalist 10,
"have erroneously
supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political
rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated
in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions." For Madison, there
was no single common good or "General Will" of society, only the inter–
ests and wills of diverse citizens and factions, all competing for influence
and power.
But the French had been profoundly influenced by Rousseau's con–
cept of the General Will. Throughout the Revolution they would refer to
it, taking for granted the validi ty of the fantas tical theory that was the cen–
terpiece of his political philosophy. Rousseau had held that a democratic
society possesses a "General Will." This "will" reflects what enlightened
citizens would want if they were able to make decisions solely as social
beings and citizens and not as private individuals.
Individuals
may possess
private wills that express their particular interests, but
citizens
must recog–
nize and concur with the General Will that mirrors the good of all.
Citizens' recognition and acceptance of the General Will assure the har–
mony and unanimi ty of the poli ty.
There could be no legitimate opposition to the General Will, accord–
ing to Rousseau. Those who disagree with the General Will are simply in
error, and to persist in this error would be to sacrifice membership in the
polity and political rights. How can citizens know with certainty what
constitutes the General Will? Fortunately it was obvious, according to
Rousseau, and required nothing more than COmmon sense. Those who
