I'm kind of a moron, so I'm deciding to post this essay I just finished this morning without really editing it or revising it. I figure posting it here can't be any worse than turning it for class in this state--which I did this morning. It was originally due about four days ago, but I think I pushed the deadline as far as it would go. I am terrible about that when it comes to certain things.

Anyway, if anyone's interested, here's an essay I wrote in the wee hours of this morning after reading Rousseau's Discourse on the Inequality and the Social Contract. Please forgive any formatting errors. It's not transfering over to this board very well. Now it's time to hit the hay.

I am a beginner at this stuff, so keep that in mind. I pretty much summarize the two works and then give a brief critique at the end. Adios.






Jean-Jacques Rousseau explores the nature and cause of inequality in his Discourse on the Origin and Foundation of Inequality Among Men. In that work, he presents the causes of unjustified differences in status of men, which he calls political inequality, and the way that property entrenches that inequality in society. In On The Social Contract Rousseau describes his plan to remedy unjustified inequality. He argues that the establishment of a compact of people who give up individual rights to the “general will” of society will provide political equality and at the same time secure civil liberty. However, Rousseau’s remedy for inequality hinges on his belief that man is benign by nature and has the ability and willingness to submit private interests to the interests of society as a whole. If his assessment of man is wrong in those respects, his remedy will fail.

Rousseau says there are two kinds of inequality: natural and political. Natural inequalities such strength, age, and health are pointless to discuss because by definition men can do nothing about them. It is the conventional political inequalities established by man that are his concern. It is the inequalities of privilege, power, and wealth that concern him because these inequalities, though they might arise out of the natural differences in men, become embedded in society in an unnatural way. (Modern Political Thought 414)

In the state of nature, before men were aware of the presence of other men, and before they communicated with one another, there was no political inequality. Political inequality did not emerge until men began to form early societies. Early society developed because men became aware of others and began working together in crude ways for the benefit of each individual’s self-interest. In this newly formed state, where men were in closer quarters with one another than in the state of nature, they began to notice differences in ability and began to compare themselves to others. These comparisons led to vanity, contempt, shame, and envy. Although these feelings arose from differences in natural inequalities, they ultimately served as the foundation of conventional political inequalities that would later develop. (Modern Political Thought 434-435)

Competition for public recognition of high status and esteem drove men to try and acquire more goods and provisions to improve their chances of being held in high regard. It drove them to develop arts such as agriculture and metallurgy to better provide for themselves, which in turn further exposed the natural differences inherent in men. Strength, skill and talent provided some men with more goods and therefore more power than those with less natural ability. Rousseau accepts the inequalities that arise from natural differences because it is inherent in the nature of men. However, these natural inequalities set in motion a process that would make them more permanent, which Rousseau though was unjustified. Inequality that had once been natural now became embedded in society though the conventions of man.(Modern Political Thought 436-437)

The inequality in society became entrenched as men developed the idea of property. People who had acquired more goods and power through natural means passed that property on to their heirs. Generations of inheritance eventually led to large holdings of goods by a small number of people. Rousseau said that people “whom weakness or indolence had prevented from acquiring an inheritance in their turn, became poor without having lost anything.” (Modern Political Thought 438) People hadn’t changed, but their relative status had. In turn, this led to people resorting to stealing from the rich in order to provide for themselves.

The inequality embedded in society resulted in conflict between the rich and the poor. The rich felt they had a right to the services of the poor, and the poor felt they had a right to the possessions of the rich. The conflicts of interest led to violence, which neither rich nor poor was happy with. The rich, outnumbered by the poor, conceived of an idea that would prevent them from being plundered by the masses.

Rousseau says a political establishment was conceived to unite the rich and the poor. The poor would be protected from oppression, ambitious men would be restrained, and personal possessions would be protected. And it was with this development, he says, that natural liberty was forever destroyed and inequality permanently established in society. (Modern Political Thought 439)

Rousseau says the form the political establishment takes depends on the level of inequality that exists the moment the establishment is created. It could take the form of a monarchy, aristocracy or democracy depending on the circumstances. At first, these establishments were legitimate in their power because the people consented to them. However, over time, as elections became more frequent, factions and parties developed to try to gain influence and power, which ultimately would result civil wars. Citizens fought and died, not for themselves or the state, but for ambitious men in desire of power.

In an effort to avoid the bloodshed of civil war, and a desire to return to more peaceful times, people eventually relinquished their vote and allowed their leaders to gain power hereditarily. Hereditary rulers came to think of themselves as owners of the state, furthering the distinction between themselves and the people they ruled, eventually regarding their citizens as property, and treating them as slaves. This stage of civil society is the final state of inequality.

When men are reduced to slaves, which is to say they are reduced to nothing, everyone becomes equal again. Slaves are subject only to their master’s will, and masters rule only by their own passions. Justice and the notion of good cease to exist, and everyone, slave and master, is returned to the rule of strongest. Men can rule only as long as they are able to hold onto power, and when they are ousted, they cannot protest because their source of power is illegitimate. Rousseau says at this point man returns to a state of nature, but it is different than the original state of nature. Man is no longer pure and no longer lives within himself. He has forever been corrupted by the need to seek high status and gain favor with others. Man’s progress, and development of property and law eventually leads to an altered state of nature and the entrenchment of inequality in civil society. (Modern Political Thought 444-448)

Rousseau seeks to remedy the problems of civil society and the inequality it perpetuates in On the Social Contract by developing a system based on a social compact in which individuals give up their rights, including their right to property, to the will of society as a whole. He argues that if each individual gives himself up to society, and all other individuals do the same, everyone will have an equal interest in promoting the good of society, and everyone will benefit.

The effect of everyone giving up all their rights to the community is that everyone is then tied together. Rousseau says that when a man gives himself to everyone, he effectively gives himself to no one, thereby maintaining all the rights he gave up while gaining more security for what he has. Everyone then acts under the direction of the newly formed general will of society.(Modern Political Thought 470)

Rousseau recognizes that individuals will have private interests that are contrary to the general will, but he says that because individuals are bound together in a social compact, they will submit their individual interests in order to promote the interest of the general will. He says that what an individual loses when giving up his personal interest, he will regain through the benefit of society.

However, the compact only works if everyone submits to it. Society must enforce the general will on everyone, or it is a meaningless formula. Rousseau says that when a person is forced to comply with the general will “this means merely that he will be forced to be free.” (Modern Political Thought 472) Here, Rousseau asserts that freedom gained under the guidance of the general will is greater than the freedom to do what one pleases. He says that in the social contract man gives up his natural liberties, but in return gains civil liberties.

Civil liberty is restricted by the general will, but with civil liberty he says, man also gains moral liberty, which makes man master of himself. Rousseau defends this point by saying “to be driven by appetite alone is slavery, and obedience to the law one has prescribed for oneself is liberty.” (Modern Political Thought 473) He then says he has said too much on that matter because liberty is not the subject he is discussing. (Modern Political Thought 473)

Rousseau’s stated goal in On the Social Contract is to remedy the problems of inequality he identified in his Discourse on the Origin and Foundation of Inequality in Men. Therefore, it is understandable that he does not go to great lengths to explain the role freedom plays in his contract, but it is difficult to dismiss his apparent act of redefining freedom and liberty. Freedom is no longer conceived of as an individual trait. Instead, freedom is only granted in the context of obeying the general will. He says a man can be “forced to be free” because there is no individual freedom in his social compact. All freedom resides in the general will.

Rousseau describes a system of republican government in which citizens assembled in a body constitute the supreme authority. However, his system of government hinges on the idea that the general will is able to provide political equality and maintain liberty. While it is likely his compact would indeed result in a society of political equality, he is only able to reach that point by redefining liberty to be something held by society as a whole as opposed to being held by the individual. The notion that one can be “forced to be free” is an apparent contradiction in terms that he does not address in great enough detail.

Furthermore, Rousseau insists that when men consider themselves to be a single body, the common good is always readily apparent, and it only takes good sense to be perceived. (Modern Political Thought 514) This normative idea that there is always a common good waiting to be perceived does not consider the possibility that the general could fail to find a common good because a common good might not exist.

Rousseau also admits that once the social compact is violated it is dissolved, and everyone who entered into it regains his natural rights. In his Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men, he says the human soul and passions have been altered by generations of corruption and status seeking and no longer have a true foundation in nature. This belief has a direct impact on the viability of his social compact.

Essentially, Rousseau’s belief that man’s nature has been altered renders no practical way to achieve the equality he seeks with his social contract. His contract relies on men submitting their individual interests to the interests of the whole society, but given his opinion on what the nature of man has become, it seems improbable that men would be willing or even capable of doing so. Even if we were able to start over and implement his social contract before man’s natural state had been corrupted, it is possible his idea of man’s true nature is incorrect. There is no doubt Hobbes would disagree with Rousseau’s description of man’s benign natural state.

In at least a theoretical sense, Rousseau seems to have succeeded in addressing the problem of political inequality that he identified in his Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men, but only if his assumptions about the natural state of man are true. However, he is only able to do so by changing the nature of liberty from an individual attribute to a collective one. In addition, he fails to provide practical steps to achieve long term viability of his contract because of his belief in the corrupted state of man. If man is as corrupted by status seeking and self-interest as he says, Rousseau’s compact could not last.


Source

Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche. David Wootton. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Compan, Inc., 1996.

__________________
"Some years ago I had a sobering realization about women, which was that there are just too many nice ones. One simply can't fall in love with, sleep with, or marry all the nice women...One of the saddening facts of life is that there is always going to be a delightful woman somewhere who, for whatever accident of timing or attraction, simply slips by and recedes to return only in a dream."
-Larry McMurtry in Roads

If that's a 1st or 2nd year undergrad paper, I'd give it a B. (And yes, I have marked such papers - specifically on this topic).

Not bad, hits most of the high points, could use a bit of editing though and some of your statements about Rousseau seem a bit questionable. But like I said, not bad at all. The questionable assertions are rather arguable so that's why I can't say you are wrong. Rousseau is notoriously difficult to do a precis on.

Yeah, unfortunately I allowed my first draft to be my final draft. It could certainly use some editing. And yes, this is for an introductory course in political theory. Which claims seem most questionable to you? I'd love to hear any feedback. This was my first encounter with Rousseau, and I found some of the material, especially in the Social Contract, to be pretty difficult.

The idea that man can be forced to be free is something I struggled with. I'm pretty sure I understand what he is claiming, but I didn't get a good sense of how he supported that claim.

__________________
"Some years ago I had a sobering realization about women, which was that there are just too many nice ones. One simply can't fall in love with, sleep with, or marry all the nice women...One of the saddening facts of life is that there is always going to be a delightful woman somewhere who, for whatever accident of timing or attraction, simply slips by and recedes to return only in a dream."
-Larry McMurtry in Roads

Indeed. I've read quite a few, much like this.

Yes, Rousseau is very challenging and notoriously difficult for first year introduction students.

Anyway, you made some excellent points explaining the difference between natural and political inequality. Also, your second last paragraph is a brilliant insight well beyond what is expected for 1st year papers.

The part that I found rather murky was around paragraph five - where you discuss how inequality of property is apparently due to some concentration of wealth in a few hands. That's not Rousseau's argument. To my understanding, Rousseau asserts that inequality becomes enshrined (or embedded as you say) in society through the institution of inheritance inself (ipso facto). That inheritance of wealth tends to concentrate wealth in a few hands over time is an entirely different argument that doesn't affect the basic point that Rousseau is making here.

I also didn't like the 5th to last paragraph. You seem to be implying that Rousseau's definition of civic liberty is invalid or arbitrary without offering any explanation of justification for that other than your own subjectivity. That's unacceptable. If there is something wrong with Rousseau's expression, say what it is. If you can't say exactly what's wrong with something, shut up about it already (that's my general advice to undergrads writing papers). Otherwise, it just looks like filler material trying to stretch the paper out to meet some word-count requirement.

Rousseau's assertion that some might have to be 'forced to be free' is a rather famous conundrum in Rousseau's work. Indeed, it would be a suitable topic for a Ph.D. dissertation.

Rousseau uses that expression in a couple of places (not just in the context you reference). The expression inherently hints that humans might not naturally seek (or might not be able to seek) their own true freedom (civic liberty). This is very much predicated upon Rousseau's understanding of the difference between natural freedom and civic liberty.

And you are quite right - Rousseau and Hobbes famously disagree about the 'state of nature', though they both agree that there was one. I personally reject the principle of the 'state of natural' as an irrational abstraction and thus, all arguments predicated on the 'state of nature' are invalid in my opinion, but that's another topic entirely.

As I read my essay again, I see I wasn't very clear on my point there (and in some other areas). I think you're right that Rousseau says it is inheritance itself that creates unjustified inequality. The point I was trying to make, which didn't come through very clearly, is that Rousseau says in his description of early society that there was a concentration of wealth due to inheritance. That concentration and the resulting conflict between the rich and the poor led the rich to devise a system of government that protects property rights. The formation of that system of government effectively institutionalized the system of inheritance that had already been taking place. As you said, I don't think Rousseau's argument is about accumulated wealth per se, but what I tried to explain was the way he says inheritence came to be embedded, institutionalized, or enshrined in society.

__________________
"Some years ago I had a sobering realization about women, which was that there are just too many nice ones. One simply can't fall in love with, sleep with, or marry all the nice women...One of the saddening facts of life is that there is always going to be a delightful woman somewhere who, for whatever accident of timing or attraction, simply slips by and recedes to return only in a dream."
-Larry McMurtry in Roads

I had the opportunity to write about the persuasiveness of 'state of nature' arguments presented by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. I almost chose that topic because it is my inclination that arguments based on some conceived 'state of nature' are treading on thin ice. The validity of 'state of nature' arguments was not something we talked about extensively in class, and I felt like I would have needed to do more reading on the topic than I alloted myself time to do, which is why I chose the topic presented here.

__________________
"Some years ago I had a sobering realization about women, which was that there are just too many nice ones. One simply can't fall in love with, sleep with, or marry all the nice women...One of the saddening facts of life is that there is always going to be a delightful woman somewhere who, for whatever accident of timing or attraction, simply slips by and recedes to return only in a dream."
-Larry McMurtry in Roads