Good Example Of Essay On Rousseau On Inequality

(Name of Professor)

Rousseau was, arguably, one of the gentlest philosophers Europe ever produced, insomuch that he was much more charitable to ideas and peoples which other thinkers would simply brush aside. But this gentleness (or, perhaps ‘gentility’) came with a razor edge – Rousseau understood how to make a point and make it subtly enough so that he could not be penalized but his target would still get the point. The second part of the Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality among Men is an excellent example of this. The question of whether or not Rousseau views the birth of political society is a remedy to inequality or a perpetrator of it. The answer is simple – the Rousseau, political society is a perpetrator, arguably the only perpetrator
The opening lines (which are some of Rousseau’s most famous) show that Rousseau has quite a problem with the growth of society. He says, “The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, said, ‘This is mine’ and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society [How many] misfortunes could one have saved mankind by pulling up the stakes’ (395). As with most philosophers of his day, Rousseau took for granted that there existed a ‘Natural State’ of mankind prior to the developments which created society as he knew it. People in the ‘State of Nature’, or ‘nascent man’ as Rousseau termed it, were simple people who had no more than three needs, or appetites – food, rest and reproduction. These three appetites were centered around the care for the self and included nothing and no one else. As such, nascent man was a peaceful being who never dreamt of exploiting the world or his fellow beings.
This innocence was short lived, however, and soon there was trouble brewing with the growth of organized society. Up to that point, Rousseau argues, every individual was an isolated entity which only met others in order to procreate. This meant that, for all intents and purposes, every individual was exactly the same, there was no division of sexes and certainly no division based on any of the more complex social formulations which were part of Rousseau’s society. But once primordial humanity settled down into settlements and began leading settled lives, the division between the sexes became apparent. Rousseau said of the sexes that, “Women became more sedentary and began to watch over the huts and the children, while the man went out to seek their common sustenance.” (399). Development only became more rapid thereafter as sedentary lives permitted people to lose some of their ferocity and fierceness.
It was at this point that ‘negatives’ began to develop. Up until then, people simply propelled forward, driven by an urge to preserve the self, but once settlements developed, people no longer needed to fend for themselves entirely. This engendered a ‘softening of body and mind [which made them] unhappy about losing them [i.e. their former savage qualities]’ (402) without making them happy about possessing them. This unhappiness could be said to be the root of all evils in the world. Along with emotions such as affection and loyalty, there developed feelings of jealousy and discontentment. At this stage people were still ‘their own masters’ but clearly this state could not last long in a settled society, especially not one which was growing, and growing fast. Rousseau argued that if this state had not pushed its boundaries and forced itself to change, it would have been the ideal state for humanity. Divisions were based on simple physical facts which could easily be altered (meaning the divisions could be altered based on new facts) and there would be peace and prosperity for all.
As the human mind grew and developed a more complex language and constantly developed new tools to cope with new challenges, the problems created by the ‘negative’ features of individuals began to be problematic. A simple morality was developed and with it came ideas of law, order, justice and the state. But the mechanism of the state cannot very easily sustain itself – lawgivers could not themselves be farmers or potters; somebody else had to perform these tasks for them. The converse is also true, as is argued in the extract. Individuals were ‘tricked’ (for the lack of a better word) into giving themselves up to masters in the belief that it would protect them. Rousseau quite clearly said it – “They all ran to chain themselves, in the belief that they secured their liberty, for although they had enough sense to realize the advantages of a political establishment, they did not have enough experience to foresee its dangers. (403). Two facts can be garnered from this – firstly that there was a division between peoples, not merely in the sense of individuals but as whole classes, and secondly, these classes have a power dynamic between them. There is also an eerie strain of, what we now call, totalitarianism when Rousseau speaks about the power and influence that this early political set up exercised. And especially unnerving statement is, “For the poet, it is bold and silver; but for the philosopher, it is iron and wheat that have civilized men and ruined the human race.” (402) because it shows that the establishment was advanced enough to control people, but people were not yet wise enough to see its control.
In the description of an individual being oppressed by bandits, Rousseau produces a speech which may very well have been used to muster the individuals’ forces to attack a common enemy. This is justified by the first individual when he says, “Let us unite in order to protect the weak against the strong.” (406). He goes on to argue that facets such as fame, glory and honor were created to solidify the system and allow it to be perpetuated through generations – more importantly through the patrilineal generations. From this base, all the forms of inequality, be it physical or mental, were formed and reinforced. Rousseau says, “ [it is inevitable that] as soon as they are united in one single society and are forced to make comparisons among themselves [these comparisons are] the surest indicators of a well or ill-constituted state.
The problems with this stance are clear from the start. None other than Voltaire wrote to Rousseau to ask him whether he was joking when he made such claims. But Rousseau was not and he honestly believed that humanity had passed its ideal state, and, in a somewhat Schopenhauerean strain of cynicism, stated that it was already too late to turn back.

Work Cited

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. ‘Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of the Inequality
Among Men’. Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to
Nietzsche. 401-410. ed. David Wootton, 2nd edn. Indianapolis: Hackett. 2008.
Print.