Same Boat Significance

The expression “we're all in the same boat” is a crucial factor in determining whether a group of people pulls together to successfully face a challenge or splinters into factions and fails. When a group—from a handful of people to a full society—coheres, they are able to cooperate with one another to keep the group strong and resilient. Many philosophers, such as Jean Jacques Rousseau, have described such a society as one that has created a “social contract.” This term describes an agreement among society members to cooperate with each other and with the government, in order to create benefits for all. Those benefits can be crucial for the society to be able to provide for the welfare of its members.

History has shown that small groups have been more successful than large groups in creating and perpetuating the social contract. This is because a small group of people can actually feel that they are in the same boat. For example, when a band of our hunter-gatherer ancestors faced a crisis such as a flood, a troop of lions, or starvation, they naturally pulled together in order to survive. Additionally, everyone knew everyone... they all were literally in the same boat. That cohesiveness is much harder to sustain in large societies. So Rousseau and other philosophers described how large groups inevitably tend to disintegrate and descend into chaos, when members do not feel as if they are in the same boat.

One unfortunate example of when a large society can develop a strong bond is when its country goes to war. The exterior threat causes them to pull together to defend the homeland. The situation then creates an atmosphere of comradeship, that overpowers internal dissensions. Manipulative political leaders know how to unite the populace, by posing another country or people as a threat. This is often done today, for example, in the context of rallying citizens against immigration.

Throughout history the world has been divided into separate geopolitical states that often engaged in war with each other, either because they saw no reason to feel in the same boat with a neighboring country, or they feared it or wanted it. Now we have a global society linked tightly by commerce and the internet. Our communication abilities keep us closely and instantly connected, and yet fragmentation, competition, and polarization can make us feel that we are not at all in the same boat. While the global community should feel more connected, we in fact are fragmented even more.

Societies like the United States are suffering from a severe case of polarization. Rousseau and his colleagues would recognize this process as the disintegration of the social contract and the danger of descent into chaos. Will current societies be able to bridge the polarizing gaps and show their citizens that they are in the same boat, or will we tread farther down the path of disintegration?

Rousseau’s Covenant

The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau proposed ideas in the 18^th century about the fundamental nature of humans and their societies. While his views on individual human nature were generally optimistic, he was quite pessimistic about the qualities of society. He wrote that, while we are born virtuous and free, civilization will inevitably make our lives unpleasant. The opening statement of his famous work, On the Social Contract, reflects this sentiment: “Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.”

Much of Rousseau's philosophical work was about how to counteract society's and governments’ harmful influence on each of us. His concept of the “social contract” was a way protect our freedom. It is basically a covenant between the populous and the government which assures that citizens have the ability and right to rein in government, when it threatens to break that contract. Such a well-ordered society cannot endure, however, if there does not exist some kind of common will of the people. There needs to be some cohesion among citizens… some coming ground. Once citizens begin to fragment, however, they will lose their authority and their control, allowing the government to seize power and begin to violate the general will and harm the populace.

Whatever kind of regime is established—that is, whatever form of government is created—in order to be legitimate it must implement the will of the people, by creating a just society that provides for the common good. In this manner the government becomes the executive, while the people are literally sovereign. In fact, the people should be the source of laws that govern society... because those laws must be formulated in the interest of citizens. If instead, the government makes laws, then the people ought to have the authority to accept or reject them. The critical point is that the government should be implementing the will of the people—not dominating or controlling it.

The USA Constitution enshrines this concept by its very opening words: “We the people of the United States...” The Constitution goes on to define the government as being formed into three balanced branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. Yet the core of the Constitution is the concept that all three branches must still be subservient to the will and welfare of the people. It is, after all, “We the people…"

Rousseau was concerned—if not convinced—that governments so justly conceived, will inevitably violate that contract by seizing inordinate power and responding chiefly to the desires of the rich and powerful. I think one could make a good argument that that is exactly what is happening in the US today. Things are out of balance. The needs and welfare of the people are being disregarded by the rich and powerful in Washington, DC, as well as in state capitals across the country.