IMAGINING
OTHER
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY - A
PRIMER
Jean-Jacques ROUSSEAU1712 – 1778. (pp10)
Links: Imagining Other Index Page
Political Philosophy Contents Page
‘… the human
understanding is greatly indebted to the passions which, it is universally
allowed, are also much indebted to the understanding. It is by the activity of
the passions that our reason is improved, for we desire knowledge only because
we wish to enjoy…’ (ed. GDH Cole: J-J Rousseau The Social Contract
& Discourses p 61).
1. Life and Personality.
1.1 Rousseau was born
A complicated and contradictory person:
Rousseau was over-sensitive as a child - years later he remembered, and
wrote in his Confessions how he blamed a nurse for the loss of a ribbon that he
had taken himself... The guilt of this false accusation seemed to have stayed
with him into adulthood. Maybe because he was brought up by women (grandmother,
friends of family), his outlook was introspective and sensitive. He was, he
says, torn between "base" and "sublime" thoughts and
feelings. This was not an age in which people discussed sexual urges openly, so
we have to speculate about the “dark” feelings – though the blaming of a
servant for his own stealing may be the sort of thing he meant. It is probable
that he simply wanted approval, but found it difficult to deal with people. He
may also have thought that any criticisms of his ideas were criticisms of him
(we are sometimes told to separate the ideas, or the deeds, from the person… I
have never myself been sure that this is that simple) He certainly seems to
have suffered from a sense of insecurity, and maybe inadequacy.
Rousseau set up a household with a woman who he acknowledged was not on
the same intellectual level as himself, as she was of peasant origin. He had
several children by her, but gave them into care. This, from the man who was to
write an influential book on child-centred upbringing and education!
Although he believed in the importance of fellow-feeling, to the extent
of praising patriotism, he himself preferred to spend time alone...
Probably (unlike with other political philosophers?) with Rousseau we
need to take into account his personality when we speculate as to whether his
political theories could work: by this I mean that just as he was sensitive, romantic,
and needed other people... so he probably expected others to be the same. If in
fact everyone were something like this (without the persecution complex!) then
his ideas of the General Will, and direct democracy in small communities could
perhaps work?
Sabine suggests (p 576) that Rousseau projected his own guilt feelings
(self-doubt etc) onto society: “Rousseau’s passionate belief that all men are
naturally good, which he once said was the fundamental principle of his ethical
writings, was less an intellectual conviction than a reversal of his innate
fear that he was bad. By throwing the fault on society he was able at once to
satisfy his need for condemnation and to shelter himself in a comfortable
myth.” To which I would say: why a myth?
Is it not possible that Rousseau’s fear of being bad originated in the society
around him – especially in the Calvinism of 18th century
The contrast between the high moral principles he saw as ideal and the
corrupt society he found, in
Others (viz Jones, see below) regard him as a
spoiled egoist… however, I note that Jones seems to overlook the emphasis in
Rousseau on ‘compassion’, and to conclude that Rousseau’s thought about ‘human
nature’ is full of inconsistencies. Whilst Jones presents very well the
‘evolutionary’ aspects of Rousseau’s picture of the change from pre-social life
to society, I find Sabine’s account of Rousseau’s thinking more balanced.
1.2
He left school age 16 and travelled: he stayed in
However, Rousseau fell out with the other philosophes, and with many people e.g. Hume (the Scottish
philosopher). He may have had a persecution complex, (Hume was a very
good-natured and sociable man, but Rousseau – having accepted his hospitality –
left accusing Hume of dark plotting against him). In terms of his thinking, it
was because Rousseau felt sentiment
(sensitivity, based on feelings) was more important, and more natural, than reason. He was in this a precursor of romanticism
(cf. Wordsworth). He loved “nature” and wrote a book about his walks, and his
dreaming as he walked through the countryside. He admired the newly
“discovered” native peoples, whose lives were described by travellers, as he
believed they led more natural lives than the civilised French. In retort,
Voltaire sarcastically said that Rousseau's praise of the "noble
savage" was so convincing that it made him want to get down on all fours.
1.3
This period also saw social upheaval, culminating in the French
Revolution of 1789, which brought about the removal of the “ancien regime”, and
absolutism.
Louis XIV epitomised absolutism: his Court was the centre of France –
he was the “Sun King” – and everyone who wanted to be anyone came to the Court;
for example they watched the King’s “levee” (getting up), and even the way he
dressed was copied by people across the country. It has been said that if he
wanted to stimulate the production of lace, all he had to do was increase the
length of his lace cuffs…
The demand for change, however, was coming from the growing middle
class.
Rousseau opposed the absolute monarchy, and social inequalities, as did
the other “philosophes”..., and hence contributed to the spread of
Revolutionary ideas – especially the idea of the sovereignty of the people, based on the general will (though it is
most likely that Rousseau believed that this would only be only possible in
small communities). This differed from the other political ideas of the time in
The General Will is a controversial idea (see below), and at the time
it was very radical idea. Another radical side to Rousseau was in his rejection of representative democracy,
in favour of what we would call direct
democracy... and of course his whole outlook is based on a belief in social equality.
2.
1749: Discourse on Language
1749/50: Discourse on Arts and Sciences
1753/4: Discourse on Inequality
1755: Discourse on Political Economy - article for Encyclopaedia
1756: working on Political Institutions (abandoned, and replaced by
CS), Julie (novel) Emile (educational treatise)
1762: "The Social Contract"
3. Key Ideas:
popular sovereignty
general will (which is never wrong)
society shapes people (for good and bad)
language, reason and morality originate with society (did not exist
before)
social contract (founds society)
false social contract (not based on general will) creates a corrupt
society
natural (pre-social) sentiments (sensibilité)
(which are the basis of the general will):
amour de soi
pitié
4. Early Ideas: writings
prior to The Social Contract – the “Discourses”
Rousseau tells us that his first interest (1743) was in political
institutions; however, his first writings were a series of three Discourses:
4.1 Discourse on the Moral
Effects of the Arts and Sciences
(1749/50): the innocence of
“natural” man. [see the Summary sheet]
This essay was written for a competition set by
(Marx was not by any means the first to talk of contradictions in the
existing social system…)
Rousseau’s answer was quite unexpected: nearly everyone in the Age of
Reason would have praised the arts and sciences for their contribution to
civilisation. Rousseau declared they were the cause of a corruption of our natural innocence, they serve to make us
accept the existing "civilised" order, i.e. to accept our slavery. He
went on to argue that this was most likely to happen when they were in the
wrong hands, or used for the wrong ends. Thus, the study of literary style was
carried out to develop "manners" – and this simply leads to
hypocrisy...
Because
of “taste, manners, politeness, decorum”
etc, “We no longer dare seem what we
really are, but lie under a perpetual restraint… What a train of vices must attend
this uncertainty! Sincere friendship, real esteem, and perfect confidence are
banished from among men. Jealousy, suspicion, fear, coldness, reserve, hate and
fraud lie constantly concealed under that uniform and deceitful veil of
politeness; that boasted candour and urbanity, for which we are indebted to the
enlightened spirit of this age.”(ed. Cole p 7).
In other words in this very early text Rousseau was beginning to
develop the argument that society
corrupts man, even though it brings benefits (see below.. ). From this,
Rousseau was to develop the view that ordinary people and their natural
sentiments should be the basis of society.
See Quote 1.
In the Discourse on Language (1749): Rousseau addressed the question: which came first, language or
society? (The Discourse was originally intended to be part of a history of
music... Rousseau was an authority on music and I believe devised a system of
musical notation).
4.2 1753/4: Discourse on Inequality: the fundamental nature of man – self-respect and compassion – the
origin of society, private property and conflict.
Using evidence from the writings of travellers and naturalists such as
Buffon, Rousseau explores the nature of man: natural man would be
roving individuals; there would be no permanent relationships, but a
"loose companionship"; there would be no love, no family, no
morality, and no property; people would be free, but without knowledge,
language, morality, or industry – they would be neither moral nor vicious: in a
word – “innocent”. (Berki)
Rousseau saw society as unnatural,
and a social sense is therefore also not natural - it appeared as the result of
chance. See Quote 2: we can
imagine the horror of his contemporaries, when he says that society is the
result of chance and not a natural, rationally devised institution (as other
philosophers such as Locke argued)! But, again, Rousseau is saying that society
brought advantages and benefits (sociability), as well as “costs”.
Since Rousseau believed that existing societies were so clearly
defective, he could not accept that their origins were natural. Here he also
argues that war is not natural but a product of society; contrary to Hobbes, he
believed that war could not arise in pre-social conditions.
Rousseau identifies other corrupting factors as: inequality, luxury,
idleness and the (false) political constitution. A labourer, he said, had more
physical strength and vigour than a courtier:
“men in a state of
nature, having no moral relations or determinate obligations one with another,
could not be either good or bad, vicious or virtuous… Above all, let us not
conclude, with Hobbes, that because man has no idea of goodness, he must
naturally be wicked.” (ed. Cole p 71)
The only natural sentiments
or capacities they would have would be - see
Quote 3:
amour de soi –
[love of oneself]. This, Rousseau points out is not the same as amour-propre, [self-love], which is the
basis of false values such as "honour", pride and vanity... Amour de
soi “is a natural feeling
which leads every animal to look to its own preservation, and which guided in
man by reason and compassion, creates humanity and virtue.” (ed. Cole p
73).
So, amour de soi could be self-respect
or self-preservation. Simply: the desire to satisfy our own short-term needs.
[But how different this picture is to Hobbes’s!]
pitié – [pity] but probably
best translated as sympathy or compassion. [Adam Smith used the same term and made
the same point – if we see someone suffering don’t we imagine what it must be
like and feel for them?]. Pitié is
not the same as altruism, but rather the desire not to hurt others.
Controversially (see Sabine) Rousseau seems to be saying that reason is not
"natural". But he clearly does not entirely reject reason! Rather he seems
to be saying that reason doesn’t arrive fully-developed with “man”, but is the
product of social interaction (as is language, morality, culture generally).
He notes that we would have learned that occasionally people would need
to work together in their “mutual interest”. However, he also stresses that we
would not very often have had cause to mistrust each other – the self-love he
describes is not as fearful as Hobbes’s version, and it is counter-balanced by pitié. Early forms of co-operation would
be more like a "herd", with what he calls "gross ideas of mutual
undertakings". A primitive language would exist, to help people to
co-operate.
[The origins of language
are hotly disputed: is this version any more or less convincing than any of the
others?
Such activity as the building of houses leads to the development of a
sense of property...
And this causes corruption:
the rich exploit the poor, and inequality springs from this institution of
private property...
In Quote 4 Rousseau
describes the origins of society: as human numbers increase, so the
difficulties of dealing with nature increase. Almost by chance, people find
that working together enables them better to overcome difficulties. Tools are
invented, which leads to a "new intelligence" (and this includes a
sense of man’s superiority over animals, as well as an awareness of others'
needs). [I am personally reminded of
Marxist theory here – where “contradictions” are intrinsic to/endemic in
(class) society].
There are echoes of Locke on property here – but whereas Locke is at
pains to say how useful it was to go beyond common property and into private
property and exchange, Rousseau seems to me to be closer to Marx or Proudhon
(“Property is Theft”)!
Thus we have a sequence of ideas in the Discourses: natural man is
innocent, simply feeling self-respect and compassion for others; society brings
benefits (security through co-operation, language, morality) but also corrupts
this innocence (through property and inequality); reason also is beneficial,
and a social product, but therefore can be used wrongly; the main cause of
social problems is private property, which leads to greed and war.
However, we are in for some surprises: Rousseau does not reject
society, but sets out to “justify” it – that is, to suggest ways in which we
can live in a “just” society.
4.3 Other writing before the Social Contract
1755 Discourse on
Political Economy – this was an article for
the Encyclopaedia: what activities by government can make man virtuous rather
than corrupting him? Here he introduces (but does not explain or go into
detail) the notion of the "general will" (which was first mentioned
by Diderot) as providing a rule of justice for all good governments.
1756 at this time Rousseau was working on Political Institutions but this was abandoned, to be replaced by
the Social Contract, Julie (a novel)
Emile (an educational treatise) –
Julie and Emile both describe the upbringing of a child, and use this to
advocate a child-centred approach. However, these works are controversial
today, since he believed that boys and girls should be brought up in very
distinct ways – because they would play different roles in society. Many
feminists (see Pateman especially) are hostile to Rousseau because of these
views, but others have pointed out that he gave to mothers the crucial task of
nurturing children’s sensitivity, and developing their social sensitivity.
5. Political writings:
"The Social Contract" (1762).
Quote 5: the opening words of The Social Contract:
"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.
One believes himself the master of others, and yet he is a greater slave than
they. How has this change come about? I do not know. What can render it
legitimate? I believe that I can settle this question."
It is quite startling to find, after the opening declaration that we
are all in chains, that Rousseau has no intention of simply telling us we ought
to remove the chains, or how. Despite what we have seen of his view of the happy
condition of pre-social man, he tells us that he wants to “make [the chains]
legitimate”. What he is now saying is that he wants to answer one of the
age-old questions at the heart of political philosophy: what conditions should
be fulfilled to make a government legitimate?
Rousseau has clearly shifted his ground here: the state of nature – as
Locke had said – must have “things wanting” to it. However, Rousseau did not
want to simply repeat Locke’s arguments – especially as they raised several
problems: first, (as we argued before) the initial contract or agreement to set
up the state does not bind future generations; secondly, in practice it is
unlikely that everyone will consent to every piece of legislation, so we have
another age-old problem for political philosophy: how to justify, or make
legitimate, “majority rule”? (Later liberal thinkers such as J.S. Mill were
particularly concerned about a dictatorship of the majority. The majority,
after all, is not necessarily right…)
The answer Rousseau gives eventually (see Quote 10 below) is
that society must be based on the sovereignty of what he called the “general
will”; the “general will” by his definition identifies what is for the
good of all society. It is not simply a matter of opinion; rather, claims
Rousseau, there must always be an optimum policy if only everyone thinks about
it in the right way – that is, to ensure the good of all (when this is done the
outcome is the “general will”). We will
return to whether this makes sense later…
Quote 6. However, first Rousseau discusses the difference between a society
founded on force, and one based on consent, and (unsurprisingly perhaps) argues
that consent must be the basis of any legitimate authority.
That this is unsurprising to us is because Locke and Rousseau in fact
laid down the basis for our way of thinking.
Rousseau, along with Locke, is taking a different position to that of
Hobbes (or before him Machiavelli), because, as Jones says, once the kings had
won supreme power over rival forces, the political/philosophical problem was no
longer to justify and argue to strengthen the power of the king (as Machiavelli
and Hobbes had done) – rather, as with Locke, the problem was to limit this
power in the interests of the people.
Quote 7. Rousseau’s very clear definition of the problem for political theory
is set out here.
Before coming to Rousseau’s solution in more detail, it is very
important to note two things:
(i) that although Rousseau is using the same terminology as Locke and
others (viz. “social contract”), he seems to be meaning something quite
different by it (again, more on this in 3.10 below) and
(ii) that he distinguishes between existing social contracts – that is,
how existing society may have been set up – and what he believed a genuine
social contract involved. The text is not always clear as to when he is talking
about existing contracts and when he means the ideal he proposes (see 3.10).
Quote 8 gives his view of on existing social contracts, and what a radical sentiment
it seems to express! Inequality in wealth is related to inequality in
power... and we are expected to be
grateful for the “pains” taken by our rulers to protect us!
Quote 9 Rousseau follows many other political philosophers in trying to trace the
origins of society and of political organisation. This spells out the point
made above about the “unnaturalness” of society.
Note the equation of adulthood with independence (provided people
follow what is natural – “convention” allows alternatives of course).
This extract also includes Quote 6 about legitimate authority, and
Rousseau adds that our own freedom is so essential to us that if we give it up
(permanently, I presume he means) we lose our “nature and rights”).
The rest of the statement concerning the origins of society is pretty
uncontroversial; however, note that the emphasis is not on individual security
and survival, but on “the human species”… The origins for Rousseau lie in
collective action, especially for survival.
Quote 10 sets out the terms of the social contract, and describes exactly what
Rousseau meant by the term. And it is here that we can see why some oppose
Rousseau so strongly.
This is far from the liberal philosophy which puts individual rights at
the basis of society, as the individual totally surrenders all rights to the
collective. Rousseau’s argument is: that this “total alienation” is not a
problem if we have arrived at the general will, because the general will is a
formulation that we will have agreed with (or - see below - should do!).
As pointed out above, Rousseau uses the same term (“social contract or
compact”) as Hobbes, Locke and others, but the meaning is different: for
Rousseau this is an agreement to draw up society (not to have a ruler), and the
agreement is between its members (not with a ruler). The contract is therefore
separate from, and obviously precedes, a contract with/to form a government.
The other crucial – and controversial – point Rousseau makes concerns
“freedom”: the whole people agree to draw up laws and are free so far as they
agree to have and obey laws. Again, this formulation aims to avoid the problem
of minority rule. But the argument so far brings up two problems:
(i) does it make sense to talk of a contract which involves the “total
dedication” of every individual to the state/community? Several commentators
have said this is not a contract at all!
However, the picture of the creation of a moral community is something
new in political thought – this is a statement of what is known as the organic
view – and it goes back to the classical Greeks; it also suffers from the same
problems that their view raised: can there be individual freedom, or equality,
in such a model?
(ii) the statement that obeying the law makes us free (and see Quote
12) has alarmed many, and has been seen as implying totalitarianism. It may
remind you of the Nazi slogan “Arbeit macht Frei” (work makes you free) – but
it is, to me, very different. My own view is that the last part of the
statement, to the effect that simply following our appetites is not the same as
freedom, is crucial.: if we simply do what our “drives” push us towards, we are
“slaves’ to our “appetites”.
I believe that Rousseau is trying to do something that is very
difficult: to put into words the development of humans from instinctive to
moral beings. After all, if he is right, our very ability to use language and
to reason evolved over a long period of time – and surely we are still
evolving. For Rousseau, politics and morality couldn't be separated -
"moral liberty makes man truly master of himself" (in this he was a
precursor of Kant: the individual can
will a universal law). Rousseau's picture of the evolution from the state of
nature is also an account of a move from “freedom from” (negative freedom in
Isaiah
[This debate, about
whether the state should simply leave us free to pursue what we want (the
modern conservative line), or make sure that we develop moral standards etc (a
socialist view?) goes on today. Conservatives criticise the “nanny state”
because they believe in freedom “from” the state. Others argue that if all
individuals pursue their own freedom there will be conflict, inequality, and exploitation; so the state has a duty to
identify and encourage the values that our society holds to, even if this means
either restricting some individual freedoms (no smoking) or promoting certain
beliefs (e.g. tolerance, through outlawing anti-homosexual statements for
example).
The idea of society evolving through a process into a situation where
we have a “contract” that expresses the “general will” makes a good deal of
sense. Moreover, as Jones points out: the contract cannot have been a single
event: either before it we were selfish and ignorant and therefore unable to
make a contract, or we were rational and sociable, in which case we didn’t need
one!
Quote 11. However, as argued above, the crucial problem is with the “general
will”, and here Rousseau seems, to many, to simply add to his problems! He
makes a distinction between the general will and particular wills: a group of
people who pursue a common end, or are united for some purpose, can identify
the best way to realise that purpose - but only if individuals stop thinking of
their own selfish preferences etc. If we simply “add together” all the
individual, particular wills – i.e. what people want for themselves - we are not likely to end up with any kind of
agreement! This is what Rousseau calls the “will of all”.
My own understanding of this is that he envisages a group of people who
work together to arrive at a consensus, by agreeing to disregard suggestions
which are aimed at individual preferences rather than at the good of all. There
are communities (e.g. Quakers, even perhaps the various bodies in the United
Nations) who work on this basis – it is slow, and sometimes may end in
deadlock, but the end result is that everyone at least agrees with what has
been decided. The writer on organisation theory, Douglas McGregor (The Human
Side of Enterprise, 1960), argues that managers need to bear this in mind: effective
groups are those that draw on all their members and make sure that all views
are taken into account. Disregarding individuals or minority views leads to
frustration and eventually may mean that action is obstructed or even
sabotaged.
Rousseau speaks of adding and subtracting ("cancelling out the
pluses and minuses" of) the wills of the members of the community to
arrive at the general will; I think this is unhelpful, as it sounds like a
mathematical process, when deliberations between people are more subtle and
complex than that.
Quote 12. So we are talking about a unanimous view, or a consensus – not simply
the will of the "majority". That is, the majority is not
automatically right – though it may be. Here several worrying implications of the
“general will” idea are spelled out by Rousseau himself:
(i) Rousseau disallows factions or parties, because what he believes we
really should be aiming at is the general good.
[Many in the west
would have difficulty with this idea – but for a long time in the Soviet Union
it was argued that the Communist Party was the only body that could identify
what was for the good of the people (it had “scientific knowledge”).
(ii) The other aspect of the general will that seems strange is that is
“always just” – and by implication always right. This makes it seem as if the
general will exists outside or independently of the group (though I do not
believe Rousseau intended this). But the consequence must be that if anyone
disagrees with the decision of the whole community, they must be in error. I am
sure we can all see the dangers here! And surely what will happen in practice
is “majority voting”? What is the criterion whereby we can judge whether a
particular recommendation really represents the “general will” in the sense
that Rousseau uses the term: the correct, just, decision that is for the good
of all?
[In Rousseau’s
defence, I think he is grappling with notions that we have to deal with today,
of the “collective person”, “collective responsibility”, a “corporate body”
etc. After all, there has been quite a fight to get a law of “corporate
manslaughter” passed in this country: opponents have argued that the
corporation has no identity because it is a collective – this simply seems to
me to be a way of avoiding pinning down responsibility. Rousseau certainly
recognised that collectives have a real existence!
[Questions such as
over the “collective responsibility” of the German people for Nazism come to my
mind here. I was horrified to read that one estimate of the number of Germans
who had committed war crimes ran into the millions… So there was a Jewish
organisation that believed – since lawful punishment was never going to be
meted out to so many – that they should deal with the problem by mass killings
of Germans…
(iii) But perhaps the most disconcerting point Rousseau makes – and it
is often quoted against him – is when he says that individuals who refuse to
obey the general will can be “forced to be free”… There seems to me to be no
way of defending this – though it does follow logically from Rousseau’s
definitions and argument.
[Communitarians and
others, posed with this sort of issue, either have to argue that the state must
allow differences – or that individuals must be free to leave one state, or
community, and find another that agrees with them!
6. Further comments and
evaluation of Rousseau’s ideas, and his significance in relation to his own
times and to later ideas:
6.1 The Sovereign body for Rousseau is that body in which supreme formal political power ought to reside (not, as in
jurisprudence, where it does reside),
and it is clear that the people
should be sovereign, not the government or any part of it. The government are
the servants (“officers”) of the people, who carry out the will of the people - i.e. for Rousseau, the legislative is superior to the executive. It is also clear that he
distinguished between specific “laws” or powers, such as when a war is
declared, and the general right to make war: the latter belongs to the people,
who may then devolve the power to an individual in a specific instance.
This position was taken up by those who supported the French Revolution
of 1789. This revolution was a critical point in modern history, as it
culminated in the defeat of absolutism and the birth of the democratic
republic; many revolutionaries at the time took Rousseau as their inspiration.
The Revolution saw the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen: and
its slogan was equality, liberty, and fraternity...
6.2 A Legislator may be needed when establishing a state: the people, at this stage,
may need guidance. However, the Legislator has no role in the constitution once
established. Rousseau drew on historical knowledge here, and the fact that he
himself had been asked to help draw up constitutions (for, e.g.
6.3 Rousseau favoured tolerance of religion, and freedom of belief, but
thought a kind of state secular religion
would be needed to promote support for the community. (but how would this avoid
chauvinism, i.e. excessive patriotism?
6.4 As noted,
Rousseau had a controversial view of the role
of women – in fact he saw them as a
threat to public order, because they do not have men’s rationality!! Yet he
gave them an important role in the home, bringing up children with a sense of
responsibility, morality, duty etc, which underpins the civic virtues... this
idea was seen by many women of the time as progressive – and perhaps part of
its appeal was the importance Rousseau put on "natural" feelings. But
this meant that woman would have a separate role, and not be allowed to take
part in public life… Writers such as Carol Pateman today have little time for
Rousseau.
6.5 He saw how economics was not
just an individual concern but affects politics and culture – and since he also
argued that there should be equality, with "no one wealthy enough to buy
another, no one poor enough to be forced to sell himself..." we might see
him as a precursor of socialism?
6.6 Some argue that he paved the way for a more radical view of democracy,
viz. direct democracy – witness his
attacks on existing forms of representative government, such as in Britain:
"the British believe they are live in a democracy, but they are only exercising
power when they vote, and that is only one every five years!" However, the
most important thing about a state for him was that the people’s will should be
sovereign: different forms of government might then follow – although he
conceded that small states were preferable (and some would say that the kind of
democracy he advocated could only exist in small communities.
6.7 In conclusion, Rousseau was a complex figure in many ways: his thought
looks both forwards and backwards, as he uses the language of the ‘civic’
period [from the 17th century on] e.g. ‘social contract’, but he thinks
in a modern (organic, collectivist) way. In some respects he looks back to
Plato (idealising the community; seeking the fulfilment of individual through
his/her subordination to the community; giving the highest authority to ethics
rather than the law), and he looks forward to Marx. and the socialists (his
plea for equality and collective well-being; the insight into contradictions in
the state; seeing history as marking the progress and development of man’s
reasoning and morality).
Additional Sources:
G.D.H. Cole: Introduction to Everyman Edition of The Social Contract
and Discourses, Dent 1990.
C.E. Vaughan: Introduction to Du Contrat Social,