“The first man, who, after enclosing a piece of ground, took it into his head to say, 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes, how many wars, how many murders, how many misfortunes and horrors, would that man have saved the human species, who pulling up the stakes or filling up the ditches should have cried to his fellows: Be sure not to listen to this imposter; you are lost, if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong equally to us all, and the earth itself to nobody!”
– Jean-Jacques Rousseau's “Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men” (1754), first paragraph of “Second Part”
I first read this work in English translation …
In the spring of 2007, I voluntarily read Jean-Jacques 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”) in English translation. This 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 I started this later project, more than a decade had passed since my first reading of the book in 2007.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
But more than a decade later, I read it in the original French, too
But I had been laboring for some three years on another French work, which was “in line” ahead of it, so to speak. This other work was Montesquieu's “De l'esprit des lois” (“The Spirit of Laws”), which I describe here. In 2018, I finally finished this work by Montesquieu, and could thus finally start on Rousseau's “Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes.” This book is known by many titles in English, including “Discourse on Inequality” and “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” (both abbreviated versions of the full title). For simplicity's sake, I will use these abbreviated versions of this English title for the most part. I started this work in January 2018, and finished it some six months later in June 2018. Thus, I have read this entire work in its original French, including Rousseau's notes at the end. I can thus certify that my criticisms of this work are not based on mistranslation.
Statue of Rousseau on the Île Rousseau, Geneva
Rousseau held that people lived in a utopian state before the introduction of private property …
So what are these criticisms that I mention? To explain this, I must first discuss a few core doctrines of Rousseau's “Discourse on Inequality.” One of them is that humanity lived in a utopian state before the introduction of civil society and private property. Like others before him (including Hobbes and Locke), Rousseau referred to this condition as a “state of nature.” But unlike others before him, Rousseau generally painted this state of nature in fairly positive terms. Like others of his time, he referred to human beings in this condition as “savage man,” and held them up as an ideal sometimes called (by others) the “noble savage.” Rousseau's version of “savage man” possessed neither reason nor language, in contrast to the “savage man” proposed by many others before him. He did not live in a constant anxiety and fear of death, but instead had natural pity and compassion towards others. In short, Rousseau describes a sort of “Garden of Eden,” similar in some ways to that found in the Bible's Book of Genesis (although different in many other respects). The most important feature of this idyllic state, in Rousseau's view, was the complete absence of private property. Interestingly, Rousseau agrees that men will eat in this state of nature, and mentions their related desires for food. But somehow, Rousseau's “savage man” is able to eat this food without first claiming it as his own. Somehow, eating for Rousseau does not involve first claiming the food as one's private property, which is among the most curious features of Rousseau's whole theory of private property.
Picture appearing before the title page of a 1754 French edition of Rousseau's “Discourse on Inequality”
… which is grossly at odds with the historical reality
In this way, Rousseau paints a very detailed utopian picture of what he called “savage man.” Curiously, though, Rousseau seems to offer no evidence that his version of the “state of nature” ever happened as he said it did. In fairness, not all social contract theorists (even Rousseauian ones) will claim that this “state of nature” actually happened as he described. Rather, many of them (including myself) will just offer it as a “model” to explain how society came to be. Nonetheless, it would seem that Rousseau actually believed that all of these momentous events really happened as he described. He paints a very detailed picture of human beings before the introduction of private property, but seems to provide no evidence for this vast historical detail that he claims. His theory thus comes across to me as an extended exercise in speculation, with little or no regard for evidence or empirical corroboration. Since Rousseau also tries to support his arguments about private property by saying that private property ruined his “Garden of Eden,” it would seem that the flaws in his “Garden of Eden” account would extend to many – and perhaps even all – of his arguments about private property as well.
Title page itself of a 1754 French edition of Rousseau's “Discourse on Inequality”
Rousseau's theories are accepted almost as religious dogmas by many today …
The details of his historical account are treated as “self-evident truths” by many today, that require no establishment – much less any sort of proof. They are accepted almost as religious dogmas, with “articles of faith” accepted blindly, like that of a tenet from any God-fearing religion. Curiously, though, a number of Rousseau's disciples see their beliefs as “scientific,” and see themselves as very “objective” to boot. One problem with this is that most contemporary biologists would acknowledge that there is violent competition in nature. Both Darwinian and non-Darwinian biologists know well that competition in nature can be brutal at times. For example, animals will kill to enable themselves to eat, they will fight each other for resources, and males will sometimes compete with each other violently for females. In the words of an old paraphrase, nature is about “kill[ing]” and “be[ing] killed.” This is a far cry from Rousseau's “Garden of Eden” account, and would thus seem to be inconsistent with his theory. It would thus seem that his theory cannot be reconciled with the biological evidence, and that it may have more to do with wishful thinking than with scientific objectivity.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, later in life
Voltaire gave a sarcastic response to this work in a private letter to Rousseau …
When the French philosopher Voltaire read this work, he said behind Rousseau's back that Rousseau would “make us all beasts.” The version that he said to Rousseau's face was only slightly more diplomatic than this. In a letter to Rousseau, Voltaire said (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) that he “felt like walking on all fours” when he read Rousseau's work. Although this is undoubtedly an exaggeration, it is not by much; and Voltaire uses the exaggeration to great comic effect here. He even said that “Since it has been more than sixty years since I lost that habit [of walking on all fours], I feel unhappily that it is impossible for me to again acquire it, and I leave this natural walk to those who are more worthy of it than you or I.” (See the footnote to this blog post, for the details of this quote.) Obviously, this Voltaire quote is dripping with sarcasm, and the witty Voltaire was quite fluent in sarcastic language. He also employs a double meaning of the French word “bêtes” to mean both “beasts” and “stupid” (and one could also translate it as “brutes” in this context). With this in mind, Voltaire's letter also said that “No one has ever used so much intelligence to persuade us to be bêtes” (that is to say, beasts, brutes, or stupid). The original, in case you're wondering, is “On n’a jamais employé tant d’esprit à vouloir nous rendre bêtes.” (Source: Original French text of the letter) The use of the word “esprit” (translated here as “intelligence”) is obviously a rather backhanded compliment, because the purpose for which Rousseau was said to be using this intelligence was to persuade people to be “stupid.”
François-Marie Arouet, better known as “Voltaire”
Unfortunately, Rousseau had a great influence on people like Hegel and Marx …
Rousseau had a great influence on later generations of utopian philosophers. In particular, he influenced a German philosopher named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who was born in 1770 – about eight years before Rousseau's death in 1778. Since Hegel would later influence Karl Marx in his turn, Jean-Jacques Rousseau thus indirectly influenced Karl Marx. In particular, Rousseau's disdain for private property would influence that of Karl Marx's “Communist Manifesto,” with its line that “the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” (See this other blog post of mine, for the details of this quote.) He thus influenced the actual communist failures of the twentieth century, and influenced the modern left in the contemporary Western world. The contemporary left will often view his disciple Karl Marx as something of a savior, and many of them will also acknowledge the like influence of Rousseau upon their beliefs. Like followers of a religion, they accept his dogmas uncritically, and with seemingly no evidence to back them up. His theory is thus accepted by many today on blind faith, with all its wild detail.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
No evidence has yet been provided for Rousseau's theory
Evidence has still not been provided for any substantial portion of Rousseau's work (at least with regards to politics), but the negative influence of Rousseau can still be felt, leading people away from their natural desire for evidence and empirical corroboration.
Karl Marx
Additional details of Voltaire's sarcastic letter
After this book was finished, Rousseau sent a complimentary copy of the work to Voltaire. This forced Voltaire to give his honest opinion of the work, while acknowledging that he had received it. I have read this incendiary letter in its original French as well, and it makes for some interesting reading. The most sarcastic portion of the letter may be as follows:
“I have received, sir, your new book against the human race; and I thank you for it. You will please men to whom you tell their truths, but you will not correct these men. One cannot paint, with stronger colors than you have, the horrors of human society; of which our ignorance and weakness promise us so much comfort. No one has ever used so much intelligence to persuade us to be stupid. I felt like walking on all fours when I read your work. But since it has been more than sixty years since I lost that habit, I feel unhappily that it is impossible for me to again acquire it, and I leave this natural walk to those who are more worthy of it than you or I.”
– Voltaire's letter to Rousseau, on 30 August 1755
(Note: My translation differs somewhat from the one given in the source here.)
If you liked this post, you might also like:
A few problems with Plato’s “Republic” (and his ideal state)
The Founding Fathers strongly criticized Plato’s “Republic” (and for good reason)
A review of “Voltaire and Rousseau” (audiobook)
A review of Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” (audiobook)
A few problems with Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” itself
Actually, Rousseau did NOT influence our Founding Fathers (sorry Wikipedia)
A few problems with Rousseau’s praise of the Spartans
Actually, Machiavelli WAS pro-dictatorship (and Rousseau was wrong about him)
A few problems with Karl Marx's “The Communist Manifesto”
A review of “The French Revolution” (History Channel)
Part of a series about
Political philosophy
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “Discourse on Inequality”
Others to be covered later
Part of another series about
Communism
Communism in theory: Why Marxism can never work
Rousseau's "Discourse on Inequality" (a pre-Marxist work)
Rousseau's "The Social Contract" (the French Revolution)
The "Communist Manifesto" (and how Marxism got started)
Marx's "labor theory of value" (and why it doesn't work)The "Communist Manifesto" (and how Marxism got started)
Problems with equalizing income (even in theory)
Problems with rewarding good behavior (under communism)
In defense of John Locke: The need for private property
Communism in practice: The results of the experiments
Revolution in Russia: How the madness got started
History's horror stories: The "grand experiments" with communism
Germany and Korea: The experiments that neither side wanted
Civil war in China: How China was divided
Behind the Iron Curtain: Occupation by the Soviet Union
Chaos in Cuba: Castro and the communist revolution
Fall of the Wall: The collapse of the Soviet Union
Actually, communism has been tried (and it doesn't work)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment