How do we define the principles that govern our shared lives? From what source do they get their legitimacy? Postdoctoral researcher Nathanaël Colin-Jaeger sheds light into how modern social contract theories contribute to answering these core societal questions.
For centuries, social contract theories have sought to answer the above questions by imagining agreements that bind societies together. But these agreements, once viewed as static and one-size-fits-all, are being reimagined to meet the needs of our increasingly diverse and ever-changing world. Modern social contract theories are moving beyond the one-shot, idealized frameworks. They are becoming more dynamic, continuous, and inclusive tools not just for hypothetical thought experiments but for addressing historical injustices and fostering societal transformation.
In the 17th and 18th centuries, social contract thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant developed the classical social contract. Their theories—grounded in rational consent rather than divine authority—laid the foundation for modern concepts of legitimacy.
But these classical theories often depicted social contracts as “one-shot deals”—unchanging agreements made in a counterfactual choice situation (usually in the State of Nature). There is more, the settings of the choice situation would often pre-determine the outcomes in terms of justice and legitimacy, such that justified arrangements would bear the mark of potential partiality.
In the 20th century, John Rawls redefined the social contract as a tool for justice. His thought experiment of the “original position”, where individuals design societal rules without knowing their own social standing, sought to ensure fairness for all. But even Rawls’ vision left critical voices—particularly feminist and critical race theorists—calling for deeper inclusion.
Feminist scholar Carole Pateman and critical race theorist Charles Mills revolutionized the field by exposing the hidden assumptions in traditional social contracts. Who gets a voice in shaping the rules? They showed that the “universal” subject of classical theories was anything but—too often, it excluded women, people of color, and those without property.
Their critiques highlight an urgent need: to move from static, idealized contracts to living agreements that are revisited and renegotiated over time. This means acknowledging and addressing past injustices while building frameworks that can adapt to the realities of modern pluralistic societies.
The future of social contract theory is taking shape in dynamic, forward-looking research. Contemporary scholars are exploring how these frameworks can better reflect societal diversity and respond to new challenges. For example, recent works emphasize the importance of flexibility, calling for contracts that evolve alongside shifting social norms and power dynamics.
This evolution is more than theoretical—it’s practical. Calls for renegotiating the “social contract” are increasingly central to public discourse, from debates about systemic racism and gender inequality to demands for climate justice and economic fairness.
What makes social contract theory so compelling today is its ability to frame these debates in terms of mutual agreement and shared responsibility.
As we confront the complexities of the 21st century, social contract theories offer a vital resource for justice. By shifting from static models to dynamic and inclusive frameworks, they remind us that we are not doomed to accept past social arrangements.
This post offers just a glimpse of the journey from Hobbes to today. For a deeper dive into the evolution of social contract theories and their potential to address modern challenges, check out the full paper here.
Writer:
Dr. Nathanaël Colin-Jaeger
Postdoctoral Researcher in Political Philosophy
American University of Paris