Born in Geneva in 1712, Jean-Jacques Rousseau is often regarded as an “accidental philosopher” and a highly original thinker. He was a prominent advocate for direct democracy and a fierce critic of modernity, holding the rare distinction of being known as a “philosopher of equality”. After gaining significant prominence through an essay competition hosted by the Academy of Dijon, Rousseau’s philosophies ultimately served as a major inspiration for the French Revolution of 1789 and its foundational ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Views on the Enlightenment
In 1750, Rousseau participated in an essay competition centered around the topic: “Has the Restoration of the Arts and Sciences Had a Purifying Effect Upon Morals?”.
Taking a highly contrarian stance, Rousseau argued that the growth of the arts and sciences had actually corrupted human civilization rather than reforming it. This unexpected perspective made him incredibly popular among literary circles, and his work was published that same year under the title Discourse on the Arts and Sciences.
In this essay, Rousseau laid out essential arguments against the age of science and art, making a passionate appeal for humanity to “return back to nature”. This philosophy stood in sharp contrast to the prevailing Enlightenment movement, which was heavily promoted by contemporaries like Voltaire and centered entirely on human reason. Standing in direct opposition to this rationalism, Rousseau famously proclaimed that a “thinking man is a depraved animal”.
State of Nature
Rousseau first introduced his concepts regarding the “state of nature” in his book Discourses on Inequality (1755), and later expanded upon them in The Social Contract (1762).
The Noble Savage
- Rousseau viewed the “state of nature” as a condition of “Idyllic Blissfulness”.
- He argued that in this primitive state, man existed as a “noble savage” who was completely free to choose, consume, and live on his own terms.
- Concepts such as status, power, and hierarchy did not exist naturally; they only emerged with the rise of society.
- The degeneration of the noble savage was caused by society, science, increasing population sizes, and growing interpersonal conflicts.
- Ultimately, the romanticized “Natural Man,” who was initially free and happy, became enslaved by the relentless growth of civilization.
‘Amour De Soi’ vs. ‘Amour Propre’
Rousseau differentiated between humanity’s original state of nature and its modern condition in a highly romanticized manner—a perspective that would later inspire prominent Romantic poets like William Wordsworth. He explained this transition through two distinct concepts of self-regard:
- Amour de Soi: Before the origin of society, man existed in a condition of Amour de Soi. This term represents a healthy, natural drive for self-preservation, maintenance, and the fulfillment of basic needs through the help of nature.
- Amour Propre: With the emergence of society, Amour de Soi degenerated into Amour Propre. This reflects a possessive, comparative version of “self-love” where a man’s value and love are judged entirely by their worth compared to others.
While Amour Propre is harmless in its purest form, Rousseau warned that cutthroat competition and the relentless race for resources have “inflamed” it. This inflamed version of Amour Propre is fundamentally dangerous to the greater good of mankind.
Rise of Inequality
In his seminal work, Discourse on Inequality, Jean-Jacques Rousseau actively challenged the prevailing notions of societal disparity. While earlier philosophers, from Aristotle to John Locke, generally accepted inequalities as a standard norm, Rousseau emerged as arguably the first major thinker to strongly advocate for equality within society.
Pioneering an analytical study of the subject, Rousseau creatively divided inequalities into two distinct categories:
- Natural Inequalities: These are inherent, irreconcilable, and unalterable characteristics. Examples include a person’s color, gender, and physical appearance.
- Conventional Inequalities: These are not natural; rather, they are alterable constructs created by society. Examples include social inequalities, as well as disparities in income and wealth.
Perspectives on Private Property
Standing in direct contrast to John Locke, Rousseau firmly rejected the idea that “private property” is a fundamental natural right.
Property as a Corrupting Force
Instead, Rousseau argued that private property is a byproduct of scientific developments and the broader growth of civilization. He viewed it as an evil entity that carries deeply corrupting effects on humanity. Because of these radical critiques, the scholar Colletti famously referred to Rousseau as the precursor to Karl Marx.
A Shift in Perspective
Despite strongly condemning private property as a primary source of conventional inequality in his Second Discourse, Rousseau adopted a more pragmatic approach in his later works. In The Social Contract, he actually approved of private property, viewing it as a necessary medium of reconciliation to help manage the complex pressures of an increasing population competing for scarce resources.
The Social Contract
“Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.” These famous opening lines set the stage for Rousseau’s Social Contract. Unlike Thomas Hobbes’s vision of an absolutist monarchy or John Locke’s concept of constitutional government, Rousseau provides a framework for a sovereign community. His approach represents a unique mixture of Hobbes and Locke, creating a system that is fully absolute but completely without a singular “face” or ruler.
General Will
Rousseau’s greatest contribution to political philosophy is his concept of the ‘general will’. According to Rousseau, the general will acts as the supreme will and forms the fundamental basis of all laws. It is defined as the sum total of all the “real wills” of the people. To explain this, he divided human will into two distinct categories:
- Actual Will: This type of will reflects momentary impulses and crude self-interest.
- Real Will: This reflects a true, well-thought-out, and in-depth understanding of the greater good of society.
It is this ‘real will’ that matters the most, ultimately resulting in the ‘General Will’. Interestingly, Rousseau argued that under this system, even minorities can be “forced to be free” and compelled to obey the ‘General Will’. This specific assertion led to sharp criticism from later thinkers like Bertrand Russell and Alfred Cobban, who argued that Rousseau’s ideas inspired the rise of totalitarianism.
Popular Sovereignty
Rousseau’s model of ‘Popular Sovereignty’ is highly peculiar and different from his predecessors. He does not provide for any third-party sovereign. Instead, he advocates for the transfer of full authority from an ‘individual capacity’ directly into a ‘corporate capacity’ that is governed by the people themselves. Under this system, he provides for absolutely no natural right and no right to revolution. In other words, Rousseau’s ‘Popular Sovereignty’ has been described as Thomas Hobbes’s ‘Leviathan’ with its head chopped off.
Features of Popular Sovereignty:
- No Master: “The instance where there is a master, there is no sovereign.”
- Inalienable: “…because it is a collective authority, it is vested in the whole society.”
- Indivisible: “Sovereignty for the very same reason as making it inalienable is indivisible.”
- Illimitable: “All rights are vested in a ‘sovereign community’, no question of limit arises.”
- Infallible: “Sovereignty represents ‘General Will’ which is a combination of all the ‘Real Wills’, hence, cannot be false.”
- No representation: “The moment people allow themselves to be represented, they are no longer free.”
Principle of Direct Democracy
Rousseau fundamentally lacked faith in the representative model of democracy. Critiquing the British system, he famously stated, “Englishmen are free only once in a five year”. His true ideal was always aligned with the ancient Greek method of direct democracy. For Rousseau, the ‘General Will’ can only be legitimately decided by the ‘Associations’ of the people themselves, and never by elected representatives.
Views on Women and Inequality
Ironically, while Jean-Jacques Rousseau is widely known for his progressive ideas on equality, he offered a highly discriminatory explanation of inequality when it came to gender. Rousseau’s view of women was notably narrow and materialistic. He viewed them fundamentally in terms of their utility, centering his perspective on women as merely sexual beings and nothing else.
This perspective is explicitly detailed in his 1762 work, Emile. In this text, he asserted that although men and women are made for each other, their mutual dependence is entirely unequal. According to Rousseau, men are dependent on women strictly because of their desires, whereas women are dependent on men due to both their desires and their practical needs. He captured this philosophy by stating: “We men could subsist more easily without women than they could without us”.
List of Books with Related Information
The following list outlines Rousseau’s major works and their primary subject matter:
- Discourse on the Arts and Sciences (1750): Focuses on the criticism of civilization and the enlightenment.
- Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality (1755): Also referred to as the ‘Second Discourse’, this work serves as an investigation into the origin of inequalities and private property.
- Emile (1762): A thesis on education that also explicitly outlines his views on women.
- Social Contract (1762): Details his foundational political concepts of the General Will and Popular Sovereignty.
- Confessions (1782): The personal autobiography of Rousseau.