A few problems with Rousseau’s “The Social Contract”

“Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer.”

– Jean-Jacques Rousseau's “The Social Contract” (1762), opening lines of Book I, Chapter I

I first read this work in English translation for a history class …

In the spring semester of 2007, my history professor of that time assigned my class to read Jean-Jacques Rousseau's “Du contrat social, ou principes du droit politique” (“The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right”). This assignment was for a Western Civilization class that I was then taking. At that time, I read it in English translation, which would contribute to my later desire to read it in the original French. But it would be several years before I ever got the opportunity to do so. Thus, by the time that I started this later project, more than a decade had passed since my first reading of the book for this history class in 2007.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

… but more than a decade later, I read it in the original French for my own amusement

When I started this project, I had just finished reading another Rousseau work in its original French. This work was Rousseau's “Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes” (“Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men”). I wanted to read this other work first, since it was written some seven or eight years before “Du contrat social, ou principes du droit politique.” The full English title of the work that I'm reviewing here is “The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right.” But for simplicity's sake, I will just refer to it here as “The Social Contract.” I started this work in July 2018, and finished it some six months later in December 2018. Thus, I have now read this entire work in its original French. I can thus certify that my criticisms of this work are not based on mistranslation.

Statue of Rousseau, on the Île Rousseau, Geneva

A review of Bettany Hughes’ “The Spartans”

“Athens became the seat of politeness and taste, the country of orators and philosophers. The elegance of its buildings equalled that of its language; on every side might be seen marble and canvas, animated by the hands of the most skilful artists. From Athens we derive those astonishing performances, which will serve as models to every corrupt age. The picture of Lacedæmon [a. k. a. “Sparta”] is not so highly coloured. There, the neighbouring nations used to say, ‘men were born virtuous, their native air seeming to inspire them with virtue.’ But its inhabitants have left us nothing but the memory of their heroic actions: monuments that should not count for less in our eyes than the most curious relics of Athenian marble.”

– Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “A Discourse on the Arts and Sciences” (1750), First Part

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, an eighteenth-century admirer of the Spartans

A number of people have praised the Spartans – including Rousseau, Machiavelli, and Hitler …

Many centuries after the Spartans, Jean-Jacques Rousseau once praised their culture in his “Discourse on the Arts and Sciences.” He said that the memory of Sparta's heroic actions “should not count for less in our eyes than the most curious relics of Athenian marble” (as cited above). Niccolò Machiavelli was another philosopher who praised the Spartans. (See the footnote to this blog post for the details of this.) American colonists and French revolutionaries have sometimes been among those who praised the Spartans. In modern times, some liberals have also praised Sparta for what they perceive as its “greater respect” for women’s rights. And, as the presenter of this documentary notes, Adolf Hitler also praised the Spartans, with Nazi Germany using them as a model of sorts – particularly in their use of eugenics. (See the Wikipedia page on “Laconophilia,” or the “love of Sparta,” for some of the details of this.)

Adolf Hitler, a twentieth-century admirer of the Spartans

… while Alexander Hamilton considered Sparta to be “little better than a wellregulated camp”

Ironically, Sparta was admired even by some from its arch-rival Athens, the other great superpower of Ancient Greece. The Spartans actually believed that they were creating a “utopia.” But if anything, it seems to have been closer to the other end of the spectrum – a dystopia. Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers that “Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics; two of them, Athens and Carthage, of the commercial kind. Yet were they as often engaged in wars, offensive and defensive, as the neighboring monarchies of the same times. Sparta was little better than a wellregulated camp; and Rome was never sated of carnage and conquest.” (Source: Federalist No. 6) Thus, although he recognized Sparta as a “republic,” Hamilton considered Sparta to be “little better than a wellregulated camp” (an accurate summation). This documentary shows that the truth about Sparta is less romantic, and far less flattering, than the description offered by Rousseau. It acknowledges the rights of women in Sparta, even as it repeats tired old myths about how women actually had more rights in Sparta than they did in Athens (although I should acknowledge that they were still second-class citizens in both). But as this documentary notes, Sparta was “no feminist paradise.” It was a hellish dystopia (as mentioned earlier), with no real concept of human rights. It killed those boys that it deemed “weak,” denying them any future chance to redeem themselves for the unforgivable “crime” of weakness.

Jean-Pierre Saint-Ours’s “The Selection of Children in Sparta,” painted 1785

A review of “The Wealth of Nations: Adam Smith” (audiobook)

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.”

– Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” (1776), Book I, Chapter II

So I recently re-listened to an audiobook called “The Wealth of Nations: Adam Smith.” It is a modern discussion of this famous work, which is some five hours long. They do not attempt to give their listeners the entire text of “The Wealth of Nations,” since this would take far longer than five hours to do. But they do give a good summary of this famous work, and give the reader a good introduction to the book that created the new “economic science.”

A review of “Canada at War” (World War Two series)

“We do hereby Declare and Proclaim that a State of War with the German Reich exists and has existed in Our Dominion of Canada as and from the tenth day of September, 1939. Of all which Our Loving Subjects and all others whom these Presents may concern are hereby required to take notice and govern themselves accordingly.”

– Canada’s Declaration of War against Nazi Germany (10 September 1939)

More than one in 300 Canadians died in World War II. This is more than the percentage of the United States population that died therein. Yet most Americans don’t really know much about the Canadian contributions during World War II. I am an American myself, and so I didn’t really learn much about this subject in school. As a kid, I had heard that they were involved in the D-Day invasion of Normandy in 1944, because the 1962 movie “The Longest Day” (which I had seen) mentions their role at Juno Beach. But the Canadian military did much more in this war than just storming Juno Beach at Normandy. Their involvement in the European theater of the war began in September 1939, within a couple of weeks of the Nazi invasion of Poland. By contrast, the United States did not enter the war until December 1941, at the time that Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese. Luckily for the British and Canadians, Nazi Germany would also declare war on the United States within a few days of Pearl Harbor, thus involving the United States in the European theater of World War II (and not just the Pacific theater, as it otherwise might have been).

Canadian troops at Juno Beach on D-Day, 1944

A review of “Byzantium: The Lost Empire” (The Learning Channel)

Also known as the “Eastern Roman Empire,” which lasted about a thousand years longer than the better-known “Western Roman Empire.”

The Roman Empire was divided into western and eastern halves more than once in its history. Sometimes, the halves reunited; but when they were divided again in 395, the separation became permanent. When Westerners discussing this period use the phrase “the Roman Empire,” they are usually talking about the western portion, which fell in the year 476. But the eastern portion didn't fall until the year 1453, and it is now known to us as the “Byzantine Empire.”

Map of the split of the Roman Empire into East and West, in AD 395

To the inhabitants of this empire, it was originally known as the “Eastern” Roman Empire. But when the Western Roman Empire fell in the fifth century, the eastern empire had now become the only “Roman Empire” still remaining. Thus, it became convenient for the people living under it to refer to these eastern territories as simply the “Roman Empire.” Why, then, do contemporary English speakers instead tend to refer to it as the “Byzantine Empire”?

A review of “The Wars of the Roses: A Bloody Crown”

So why is this conflict known as “The Wars of the Roses”?

In fifteenth-century England, there was a conflict between two families for the throne of England. This conflict lasted for 32 years, and claimed thousands of lives by the time it was over with. But this conflict carries the strange name of “The Wars of the Roses.” Why do historians call it that? The reason is that the House of York was symbolized by a white rose, while the House of Lancaster was symbolized by a red rose. These were the two families that were battling each other for the throne of England. Technically, they were two rival branches of the same family - namely, the Plantagenets.

The Wars of the Roses were not really about ideas, but about who controlled the throne …

It is important to be clear on this: In contrast to later wars like the “English Civil War,” this was not a war about ideas. Rather, it was just a war about which family would control the throne, both during their lifetimes and beyond. Although I know that thousands perished during the “Wars of the Roses,” I have no information about whether it was bloodier than the later “English Civil War.” But one thing is clear: both wars were civil wars. And something else is clear, too: the “Wars of the Roses” lasted far longer than this later conflict - over two-and-a-half times longer, in fact.

20th-century rendition of “The Battle of Towton” (1461), possibly the largest and bloodiest battle ever fought on English soil

A review of “Jerusalem: Center of the World” (PBS)

“Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.”

– The Hebrew Bible, “The Book of the Prophet Isaiah,” Chapter 52, Verse 1 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

Three of the world's great religions have looked upon Jerusalem as a “holy city” …

Three of the world's great religions have looked upon Jerusalem as a “holy city.” Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have an intimate historical connection with the city. These three religions may be the most prominent of what scholars today call the “Abrahamic religions.” The city has long been hot real estate (and still is today), and has been the site of more than a hundred battles scattered throughout its history.

The “Temple Mount” in Jerusalem, with the Dome of the Rock in the center

Jerusalem really is the “Center of the World” (or at least, the “Old World”) …

I live in the distant United States, the most powerful country in the “New World.” By contrast, Jerusalem lies in the “Old World” – a world which consists primarily of three continents; which are Europe, Africa, and Asia. The Middle East in general – and Jerusalem in particular – lie in the middle of that “Old World.” This may be part of why this documentary calls Jerusalem the “Center of the World,” as it does here. As with the Middle East in general, the central location of Jerusalem may be both a blessing and a curse to it. It is a blessing in some ways, because it was at the center of the world's trade routes, and has long been such. But it is also something of a curse, because its central location accounts (at least partially) for why it has long been such hot real estate. The Middle East in general – and Jerusalem in particular – continue to be something of a battleground today. But the importance of Jerusalem also has strong religious components, which are rooted in the unique history of this city.