A Guide To Rousseau, Discourse on the
Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men, and On The Social
Contract, in Morgan, 4th ed.
Note there are two essays by Rousseau in the
Morgan reader The "Discourse on Inequality" is, as the title
suggests, an indictment of ethical failings in politics. R uses a state of
nature argument to criticize social inequality and the positions of people like
Locke. The "Social Contract" picks up where the Discourse leaves off,
with an account of the political organization needed by lovers of freedom.
The Discourse
He gives an idea of things to come in the
dedication, pp. 777-82. His political vision is as big as a city, a city where
people share the same interests, avoid policies that divide them against one
another, and a city whose women accept the wisdom and virtue of the sovereign
and contribute their "chaste power" to the larger public happiness.
The preface suggests his concept of nature, such as on 784 where he says that
it is repugnant to ill-treat any sentient being (including animals).
He begins right away (785) with a distinction
among types of inequality, and says that Locke based his politics on the
inequality practiced by "civil man." He rejects Locke’s account of
the state of nature, and Hobbes’ too (787, 795). As he says on 789, be careful
to not confuse savage man with those we see before us now. His own account of
people in the state of nature has them as solitary beings, driven by their
gentle passions, seeking the first social ties (men and women together), at 791-2.
R describes our social nature at 797-8, where
pity is a natural sentiment. Note his account of men & women on 797. The
natural love we feel for each other is tainted by society, not by nature.
The sources of inequality are described on 799:
the need for others, our dependence on others. In the SN, there is hardly any
inequality. He admits, 800, this is all conjecture….
but so was Locke’s account.
On 800, you have a famous line from his
account of property.
On 802-3, he described the family as the
first society; note the roles of men and women (he says something happens to
women in particular—is this significant?), and note the hint of a dialectical
process—our animosities arise out of our mutual dependence, it is society that
creates conflict. As he notes on 804 and 805, this is an inevitable outcome of
the division of labor. And (806) such inequalities lead to conflict. The rich
create the state to protect their possessions (807). Even philosophy was
created to figure out how to justify oppression (808).
On 810-2 is one of the more obvious examples
of how R inspired Marx—he doubts that the politics of his time were the result
of a social contract, the defenders of the society were those who benefitted from it, and constitutions vary only by which elites
are in charge. He suggests there is an historical movement behind all this,
driven by the interests of broad classes. It is inevitable that the defenders
of private land eventually become the defenders of inequality (813).
Do take a look at the notes,
particularly note 12 on p. 825. He directly discusses Locke.
The Social Contract
See the famous line, Chap. 1, p. 831. There
is some repetition of the Discourse argument about the family and the roles of
men and women in chapter two. He does say (832) that we naturally have an urge
to be free. Note during this early material he debunks Locke and others on
force and, in particular, on war. (834).
What is a political society? (835, start of
Chap. 5) What is the social problem that calls for a social contract, or
politics? (836, Ch. 6, para. 3-4)
His account of the sovereign (Ch. 7) is
original. On 838 you see the outcomes—the social contract must be guided by the
general will, not private wills; those who won’t accept that will be
"forced to be free." Through the state, people gain a better self
(Ch. 8). The general will is based on the rights we have to what we need;
this is an argument against Lockean accumulation (838-9, Ch. 9).
On 840, R begins to explain the General Will
(GW). Note that (Ch.2) liberal limits on power actually fight the GW. The GW is
always right, by definition (841, Ch. 3), but it is not merely the will of all
or the sum of wills.
Note that the city is a moral person, being a
collection of these people who follow a GW. (842,
On 845, after showing that anything God can
give us lacks effective sanctions here on earth, he defines the law as the
enacted GW. This is difficult to achieve, as he says on 846.
On 846 he describes an extraordinary
political role: the legislator, who can transform a people. This is the way R
attacks the problem of political change.
On 850, you see the culmination of an
argument about the best size of the state, and of the need for a government
that encourages virtue…. virtue is more important than riches.
In Book III, starting p. 853, R gives an
account of institutions under this social contract. As you see on 856, the
object is to enact the GW, and private wills should be found nowhere in the
exercise of government power. As the size of the state grows, or the number of
state officials multiplies, this becomes ever more difficult.
The next few chapters deal with different
forms of government; remember he says a constitution and a people must be
suited to each other, and a particular society can not enact just any constitution.
He does note, at 863, that as the distance between people and government grows,
taxes become more onerous.
The role of women in politics is hinted at in
chapter 9, p. 865. That last paragraph seems to suggest that the best
government is the one whose citizens breed most prolifically, so as not to have
immigration. Hmmmm.
He has a concept of decay similar to others
we have read in the course. Recall that
point on p. 863. Note, on 868, that a kind of dialectic is at work…. decay sets
in the moment a political community is established.
Chapter 15, 870-1, has an argument about
representatives. Since law is the enactment of the general will, R argues that representation
is a barrier—it encourages apathy, and is an alienation of sovereignty. Small
cities (or states) are better than large because they are less likely to need
representation as an institution of government.
Book IV, starting on 873, extends the
discussion of the GW. It is, he says, indestructable—what
does he mean? Notice that divisiveness happens, social bonds weaken. As argued
on p. 875, voting is needed to settle questions, and he seems to suggest that a
majority vote always obligates all. But he immediately follows that with the
claim that moral discourse is a part of politics, and the GW depends on it. The
vote is just a mechanism for putting the GW into action.
Read the chapter on civil religion carefully,
starting at 885. Is he for religious toleration? How far should
toleration go? Why does a state need a religious people? What is his argument
against Christianity? Notice that he says we should tolerate most
doctrines, and that the civil religion is really about our sensibilities, our
sense of sociability (889-90).
Remember that R began with an account of
human nature. Does he think politics can
alter that fundamental substrate? So
what?