Skip Navigation

War of All Against All: How Covid-19 has eroded our social contract

Social contract theory generally refers to the tacit agreement between citizens and their government to achieve collective security: Citizens consent to cooperate with laws in exchange for protection, and the government, in turn, offers that security. The social contract runs the gamut from community-level policies like obeying crosswalks to broader programs like taxation and welfare. Despite being a cornerstone of American governance, this tradition is far from monolithic, and, like any contract, it risks being broken. 

Thomas Hobbes’s 1651 book “Leviathan” first introduced social contract theory, arguing that both the individual and society are best served when some liberties are exchanged for collective security. Hobbes charged that, without some sense of interdependence and duty to one another, life would be “poor, nasty, brutish and short” amidst an interminable “war of all against all.” At a time when wearing a mask and receiving a vaccine are badges of adherence to that contract—sacrificing some degree of liberty to protect the community—we can see how Hobbes’s seemingly cynical forecast becomes reality. Indeed, the pandemic has both stoked the flames of societal conflict and shed light on the disconnect between self-interest and common interest. For proof, look no further than the controversy surrounding mask mandates in schools

Social contract theory’s implications are far from philosophical: Jefferson’s famous promise of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is a paradigm of contractual thinking. According to the Founders, the reason we have government is to conserve and cultivate life, and we all share the burden of making good on that promise. Thus, individuals must sacrifice some of their freedoms and put aside selfish desires in the interest of the greater good. Just as we go through the trouble of using crosswalks to avoid accidents, the same logic applies to abiding by mask and vaccine mandates during a pandemic. 

Like any social contract, all US laws—including those written in the Constitution—gain power and force from their ubiquity: A flimsy contract observed only by some violates the terms of consent of each. Someone who spreads Covid-19 because they refuse to wear a mask infringes upon the rights of the exposed. Those who argue that returning to a maskless society should be a priority regardless of the pandemic similarly contravene the social contract. In fact, any suggestion that economic recovery should be prioritized over lives seems entirely at odds with our founding principles. 

Many in the United States have advocated for the swift end to pandemic mitigation strategies—including sheltering in place, mandating masks, and requiring vaccines—in the interest of economic recovery. These voices charge that reopening the economy is more important than community health, despite the risk to human life. These freedom fighters want a ‘return to normal’ that is not at all normal in the context of social contract theory and is, ironically, antithetical to the freedoms of others. In Louisiana, for example, just three months after Governor John Bel Edwards lifted the state’s mask mandate to appease business interests, he was forced to reinstate it due to a rapid rise in Covid- 19 cases and hospitalizations. 

Even before the pandemic, the US has struggled to reconcile equal rights with economic interests. Just as Jefferson gave force to the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, he simultaneously chose to abandon those promises as they applied to the economic engine of slavery. Throughout the pandemic, social contract violations have again been sponsored from the top down, exposing America as a nation that puts businesses and economic prosperity above human welfare. It is as if the virus is an x-ray, helping us to see deep fractures in the fragile social contract that binds society. 

Covid-19 has produced an incomparable human tragedy, but it has also created a generational opportunity to revitalize and strengthen the social contract. It is critical not to set a precedent that abandons that contract, which heightens the risk of death and illness for many and bolsters the business interests of few. Consumer demand dictates which businesses come and go, but the same cannot be said for human life. Our policies should invariably be aimed at lowering the risk of death and illness, and our economy should align with and strengthen the social contract. The federal government should set the foundation for standards upon which state and local governments, the private sector, and community members may build. If our first principle of governance is to preserve life, then in the context of public health crises, the social contract must remain robust, unblighted, and binding for all. There simply is no compromise, lest we remain on track to fulfill Hobbes’s grim prophecy. 

SUGGESTED ARTICLES