Fundamental Rousseau: A Practical Guide to The Social Contract, Emile, and More

Fundamental Rousseau: A Practical Guide to the Social Contract, Emile, and More

M. James Ziccardi

Copyright 2011 by M. James Ziccardi

Smashwords Edition

Section 1 - Preface

Portions of this book have been extracted in their entirety from M. James Ziccardi’s Fundamentals of Western Philosophy with the exception of the section dealing with Emile, which exists only in this book.

It is intended to serve as a primer for students of the political philosophy and especially the more important works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Section 2 - Notes on the Text

Square brackets [] found within quotes are mine; Parentheses () found within quotes are the author’s.

Sections in bold type or that are underlined are intended by me to highlight critical points.

Section 3 - Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Biography)

(1712-1778)

The next major body of work on political philosophy which needs to be examined is that of Swiss-born Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Born in Geneva in 1712 and educated in France, Savoy, and Switzerland, Rousseau was to become one of the leading political philosophers and writers of the 18th-century Enlightenment; in fact, the works of Rousseau are often credited as being the precursor to the Romanticist movement. While in Paris, Rousseau befriended the famous French philosopher Diderot, and contributed several of his essays and articles to Diderot’s renowned Encyclopedie. Besides being an accomplished novelist, Rousseau was also a gifted music composer; however, it is his views on political philosophy that we will be concerned with here. Along with Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau’s political ideas played a key role in the establishment of modern social contract theory, though based on premises which were diametrically opposed to those of his two contemporaries. In fact, Rousseau’s ideas were so influential that he was commissioned to draw up political constitutions for the governments of both Poland and Corsica.

The list of prominent philosophers who were influenced by Rousseau is impressive. It includes the likes of Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, and Engels, just to name a few. It should also be noted that Rousseau’s ideas had a significant impact on Robespierre and other leading figures of the French Revolution. Among Rousseau’s lasting political contributions are: the notion of checks and balances within government; the division of the legislature into separate houses; the three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial); the separation of Church and State; the establishment of public education (which was the subject of his famous novel, Émile: or, On Education, which he published in 1762, and which at the time was promptly denounced and burned.); the creation of the progressive income tax; and most importantly, the concept of the general will, which will be discussed in detail later in this section.

For this discussion, we will focus on the ideas Rousseau puts forward in four of his most important political works: Discourse on the Origins and Basis of Inequality Among Men, or the Second Discourse (1754), Discourse on Political Economy (1755), The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right (1762), Émile: or, On Education (1762).

Section 4 - Discourse on the Origins and Basis of Inequality Among Men (The Second Discourse)

In this work, Rousseau attempts to account for the wide degree of inequality which exists among men throughout society with respect to power, wealth, and status. But before he can arrive at any conclusions regarding this disparity, Rousseau believed that it was necessary to explore the true nature of man; and to do this, he first needed to understand the condition of man’s existence as it is in the state of nature, which is to say, prior to the advent of society. Like Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau makes stark contrasts between man’s existence in the state of nature and his existence in the state of society; however, it is Rousseau’s views on the nature of these two existences which sets him apart from the others. For Hobbes and Locke, the state of nature is filled with terror and misery, and it is only through the creation of society that man can ever hope to be rescued from such an existence. For them, the state of nature is equivalent to the state of war, where every man is at odds with everyone else and where there is a mutual state of hostility towards both life and property; and that it is only through society that man can arrive at any common protection or any common code of morality. Rousseau, on the other hand, had a much different idea concerning man’s existence in the state of nature. For him, the state of nature is one of liberty, equality, and harmony: where every man wants no more than to provide for his own safety and comfort, and where he has neither the desire nor the ability to hold another in his servitude. As such, it is only through the birth of society that man comes to know an existence of suffering, terror, and dominion, or in a word, inequality. According to Rousseau, the inequality which exists among men manifests itself in two forms: natural inequality and moral inequality. Man’s natural, or physical, inequality is established by nature and is exhibited in such things as bodily strength, health, and the qualities of the mind and soul. His moral, or political, inequality, on the other hand, is established only through the consent of men, and is shown in their differences in power, wealth, and honor. For Rousseau, the primary cause of moral inequality is something he calls amour-propre, which is the French term that denotes the feeling we get when we perceive the positive opinions that others have of us. Accordingly, amour-propre is an unnatural feeling which causes us not only to feel superior to others, but to take joy in their misfortunes. It can best be compared to what Hobbes referred to as pride and vainglory. Amour-propre should not be confused with what Rousseau calls amour de soi-meme, which means self-love. Amour de soi-meme is the good and natural feeling we have which allows us to act and work for our own self-preservation and happiness. We will discuss how these two concepts affect man’s inequality later and in more detail.

The central question for Rousseau then becomes, if the state of nature offers man a better condition than the state of society, what can account for man’s transition from the former to the latter? Rousseau begins his answer by providing a detailed description of man’s existence in the state of nature, and from there he describes what he considers to be the most likely chain of events which led man into the state of society. It is important to note that Rousseau does not claim that these events did in fact occur as he relates them, for Rousseau acknowledges that there are valid doubts about whether or not the state of nature even existed at all. He is merely offering up a hypothesis to a history which he feels to be the most likely to have occurred. Rousseau describes this hypothesis in The Second Discourse, which is presented in outline form below.

In Part 1, Rousseau describes the condition of man in the state of nature, or what he sometimes refers to as the animal state, and compares it to the condition of man in the state of society. In the process, he makes the following claims:

Primitive man, by nature, had more natural ability than modern man.

Many of the health problems which modern men experience are brought about by stress and diet, which are the products of modern times; the ultimate cause of these problems is man’s ability to think and reason.

Domestication takes animals and man out of the state of nature and weakens them; as such, man’s strength and courage are diminished when he is socialized.

In the state of nature, animals act on instinct whereas man acts on his own free will. For this reason, free will, and not understanding, is a key factor that sets man apart from the animals.

The desire for self-improvement is another quality which sets man apart from the animals; but since self-improvement takes man out of the state of nature, it ends up working towards his detriment.

The more difficult nature is to overcome, the harder man must work to overcome it. (An interesting claim which Rousseau makes regarding this point is that because it is more difficult to live in the north than in the south, the people of the north are the more industrious of the two.)

In the state of nature, there is nothing to compel man to prepare for the future. For instance, there is nothing in the state of nature which compels man to engage in agriculture. In such a state, agriculture would actually become a disadvantage for man, for it would require his constant labor, and he would most likely end up having his produce taken by others or eaten by animals. Therefore, in the state of nature, it is more efficient for man to simply provide for his own immediate needs.

Language, i.e., speech, was probably the first step in man’s transition from the state of nature to the state of society, with gestures and simple cries being its precursor. During the first stages of language, speech would have consisted only of nouns (which were proper names) and verbs. In other words, language would have dealt only with those particulars which were present and easy to describe. Adjectives, because they represent abstract ideas, would have come later. Furthermore, in the early stages of language there would have been no regard to the genus or species, i.e., the hierarchy, of ideas, and nearly all words would have represented specific objects.

In the state of nature, man does not rely on the assistance of others. This is because the state of nature provides no motive with which to offer such assistance. Even so, there is less misery and suffering in the state of nature than there is in the state of society, and this applies to both body and soul.

In the state of nature, there are no moral relations or determinate obligations among men. As such, nothing which takes place between one man and another may be considered as good or evil, or as virtuous or vicious. The only morality that exists is individual morality, or that which is good or bad for one’s own existence.

In arguing against Hobbes, Rousseau maintains that the state of nature is what propels man to act towards his own preservation; and that by doing so, a state of existence is created which best serves the promotion of peace. This idea is contrary to the opinion of Hobbes, who believed that the state of nature always leads to a permanent state of war.

Unlike Hobbes, Rousseau believes that society is ultimately damaging to man because it makes him dependent upon others. For Rousseau, man is weak when he is dependent.

Another point which Rousseau claims was overlooked by Hobbes is that man’s desire for self-preservation is tempered by his repugnance to witness the suffering of another. According to Rousseau, this trait, which is compassion, is man’s only natural virtue.

It is from compassion that all other social virtues are derived. These virtues include generosity, clemency, and friendship.

For man, compassion is stronger in the state of nature than it is in the state of reason, i.e., the state of society.

Compassion is natural to man; it moderates self-love for the preservation of the whole.

The state of reason enlarges man’s self-respect, but it diminishes his concern for others.

Men in the state of nature are equal. It is only through civilization that they become unequal.

Men can only dominate each other in civil society, and not in the state of nature. Therefore, the bonds of servitude can only exist where men are dependent, which is not the case in the state of nature.

In Part 2, Rousseau