Life and Times of Rousseau

Life and Times of Rousseau

• Rousseau was an intellectual celebrity
• He is believed to have inspired the French Revolution, despite his disdain for revolutions
• Rousseau was an in-house critic of the Enlightenment
• He rejected the privileges of Church and State
• Rousseau diagnosed the psychological and social ills of commercial society and progress
• Like Mencius, Rousseau attributed bad behavior and social problems to social causes
  • He was a partisan of nurture, not nature
  • Rousseau rejected original sin
  • He believed human nature is naturally good but is corrupted by bad governance
• Rousseau was born in Geneva, a Calvinist Republic with a long history of self-governance
  • People with property were granted status
  • In 1457, the Grand Council of Geneva was established, holding 50-200 seats with members elected regularly for short terms
• Rousseau was the son of a widowed watchmaker and had to leave Geneva at age 10
• He first became known as a composer, musician, and theorist
• Rousseau met Diderot and shared his vision
  • He contributed articles to Diderot and D'Alembert's Encyclopédie
• Rousseau was routinely persecuted and insulted his patrons
  • He suffered creditors and state persecutions
• He had a famous quarrel with David Hume
• Rousseau had five illegitimate children with Thérèse Levasseur, all of whom were put up to a foundling hospital

Aim of the Social Contract

• The social contract assumes imperfect human nature
• It inquires into what laws or political order would be legitimate, a potentially radical claim
• The social contract tries to combine morality and self-interest

A Hobbesian Conception of Freedom

• Hobbes's conception of freedom involves the absence of external constraints, or "negative liberty"
  • This involves being unimpeded in pursuing one's desires
• The fewer constraints and the more wants one can satisfy, the more free one is
• In Leviathan, the view is subjective, with "hope in the attaining of our Ends"

Freedom and Rousseau

• The 'empirical' claim that slaves lack the desire to escape is ignored
  • This engages victim blaming
• Took effect for the cause
  • Aristotle is correct if cause is confused for effect
• If the environment is not ordered, desires and wants are adjusted to opportunity
  • Wants then become a sign of unfreedom
  • Natural slaves are happy slaves
• Adaptive preferences dictates desires can be negatively shaped by society, as seen in Stockholm syndrome and the parable of sour grapes
• People adopt a negative or critical attitude toward something because they cannot obtain it
  • The mere fulfillment of desires is insufficient evidence of genuine freedom
  • People might adapt their desires to oppressive contexts, mistakenly believing they are free
• Rousseau, like Hobbes, denies natural inequality
  • Rousseau disagrees with Aristotle that there are natural slaves
  • One cannot reason from expressed behavior regarding freedom and non-freedom and accept what is bred or developed in society

A Rationalist Criticism and Alternative

• Our sense of freedom rests on illusion and ignorance
• For Spinoza, to be free is to act from reason, that is, adequate knowledge
  • Cause and effect are confused
• Its only plausible to be under self control if you know what you are doing
  • To be free turns on the right motive and reason, the will is irrelevant
• For Spinoza, this is compatible with the idea that the universe is law-governed and fully deterministic
  • Acting with reason is the source of freedom, according to Kant

Rousseau on Freedom & Autonomy

• "[A] mere impulse of appetite is slavery, [B] while obedience to the law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty” (SC 1.8)
  • The Hobbesian or Homo economicus conception of freedom is to be rejected
    • In this conception, one is a 'slave to one's desire'
  • Following or obeying the right sort of law is freedom
• Autonomy means obedience to laws one prescribes to oneself
  • True freedom occurs when an individual is guided by self-given rules, rather than impulses or externally imposed laws
  • "A mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to the law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty," as stated in Social Contract, Book I, Chapter 8
• Law is legitimate if and only if it has a proper ground
  • The proper ground is the individual/self
  • This quality exists in the Social Contract
• Modern Republicanism is a political liberty understood as non-domination or independence from arbitrary power
  • Non-domination pushes toward equality among those who are free
• Rousseau's republicanism is a political liberty understood as governed by impartial laws
  • It should not be confused with republicanism as anti-monarchism

On Freedom

• The natural condition is freedom, or the state of nature
• In almost all polities, people are not free but often deceive themselves otherwise
• Even a slave-owner or tyrant is not free, even if he thinks otherwise
• Responding to force is merely an act of prudence
  • Prudence is self-interest, not moral
    • Responding merely to external force or personal advantage is an "act of prudence," reflecting self-interest but lacking a genuine moral dimension
  • This assumes an Augustinian conception of morality in which self-care is the opposite of morality
    • This echos the augustinian tradition where morality involves overcoming personal desires or self-interest
    • Suggesting a tension between true moral goodness and self-care or self-interest
• Morality encourages not debasing ourselves to help others

How Can One Be Free In Society?

• Rousseau agrees with Locke that the aim of the social contract is to preserve freedoms and property
  • The state of nature is fine and even creates an image of a noble savage
• Inequality and materialism, or vanity, is the source of corruption
• Rousseau believes that most societies undermine freedom and critiques actually existing polities
• He disagrees with Hobbes & Locke that even after the social contract, individuals can only obey themselves without becoming slaves

General Will

• But one must always remain part of the sovereign
  • the contarcct generates the general will in which you do not give up sovereignty
  • For Rousseau there is no transfer of power like in Hobbes and Locke
• The parties must be a united people
  • corporate in the medieval sense is a legal body
    • Keep sovereignty intact
  • Invent sovereignty in the social contract and give it to someone
    • It is made up of individuals who are moral agents
    • The people can use force to stay free

Recall the Ideas Underpinning the Social Contract

• State of nature
• Individualism
• Humans are born free and equal Natural rights, some of which are given up in the contract Popular consent source of political authority No real claim to historical accuracy
  • Rather “idea of reason”, only those political systems to which free and equal individuals could have agreed to is just Rousseau fits this nicely Critics may argue that
  • Justice and legitimacy can come apart; (so too demanding)
    • Social contract never exists, so all states are illegitimates

Property Rights; Corrects Locke

• Close to Locke (labor, etc), but avoids Locke’ accommodation of imperialism Inhabited land is simply not available for new owners (so protects, natives and aboriginals) Property rights are only absolute when it comes to necessaries of life (also Adam Smith’s view)
  • So opens door to degrees of property right (and redistribution) - “the social state is advantageous to [all] men when all have something and none too much” - It’s dangerous when inequality becomes too large

General Will II

• Notice prior to society there is value pluralism (or at least conflict of interests)
  • The source of conflict = moral disagreement - Disagreement over what people want - Sovereignty for Rousseau = exercise of the general will of people as a corporate body
  • General will aim at common good - The common good is not opposed to (some) private/partial interests - Who decides? - The Sovereign is sole judge of what is important” (SC 2.4) Only where each self-interest agrees with common interest can there be a general will So general will is violated when common good de facto only serves some private/partial interests
• factional good not equal to general will - It is not the general will if you’re not pursuing the general good Also violated when there is nothing in common over and above each will Of course, the general will is open to abuse…

Is There a Way to Know the General Will?

1 . Adequate Information: Citizens must be fully informed. 2. No Communication: Each citizen should independently reflect on their own perspective without influence from others.’

3. General Agreement: A resolution should arise naturally from the sum of many small, independent differences, reflecting the general good.
4. Absence of Factions: There should be no partial groups or factions influencing decisions → 1-4 are all jointly necessary conditions → Assumes that “the people will always be the good” ⇒ Depends on social institutions (so not always “enlightened”) So, 1-5 is rather demanding Incompatible with: (a) party politics, (b) public debate; (c) fake news (etc.)

The Limits of the General Will

So general will is never about particular people (=impartial) It only is about general features of political society But how do we get a people that will the good? Transition Problem How from any status quo to create a normatively desirable or ideal political future with a population raised under bad institutions (or worse, that is, bad breeding) - We have seen it (at least) in Plato, Al-Farab, and Master Mo - In Rousseau, under what conditions can we expect a people capable of exercising the general will to form? - Rousseau’s solution requires a special person

Divine legislator

Legislator is somebody with no interest in society that is being set up and can so solve the transition problem. Stands outside the constitution and the people Must create institutions that aim at: - 1. `liberty and equality’ (SC 2.11) - 2. which produce the right social spirit' (SC 2.8; recall Al-Farabi on civic religion!) = “real constitution!” (SC 2.12) Can only succeed with a people with ‘some unity of origin, interest, or convention’ (SC 2.10) In the state of nature or pre-founding people will not be rational (and not very clever) So, must use simple language and appeal to divine sanction (admires religious legislators) (SC 4.8)

Role Of Religion

• Social role of religion to create political union, like in Plato and Al-Farabi, in Rousseau to ensure adherence to collective morality But where does legislator come from? The legislator must have a “great soul”
  • We are back in ancient political theory (Plato, Plutarch, Cicero, etc)
    • So, this is unlikely in the state of nature (where we are roughly equal)
    • A great soul is only possible after bad societies have generated with force ‘natural seeming’ hierarchies in human nature.
    • So, historical inequality and injustice is precondition for the production of great souled legislators, who can create just society…
    • Presupposes something like historical progress & luck - Theodicy = vindication of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil.

Summary

• Rousseau draws on Ancient theories/arguments & moves, for modern ends Rousseau’s focus on legitimacy has revolutionary potential (Re-)introduces ideas about autonomy and freedom that have long after-life The idea that a free and (true) people is unified is an enduring idea

Structure of Rousseau's Social Contact

• Natural freedom
• Social contact via agreement - Creates collective unity - Sovereignty & General Will come from common good - Legitimacy of Authority & Collective Freedom - General Will versus Will of All

Summary of Key Ideas of General Will Versus Will of All:

• General Will - Aims at Common Interest - Unity & Legitimacy - Basis of Sovereign Authority
• Will of All - Aims at Individual Interests - Division & Partiality - Risk of Social Conflict

Role of the Legislator:

Imperfect Society where there is a Transition Problem

Creates Durable & Legitimate Laws

Ideal Society: Collective Obedience to Good Laws The legislator solves the transition problem”: how to create good laws and a just society from imperfect conditions.

The Legislator must - Understand profound human nature - Be unbiased by personal interests - Be non violent but influence through moral authority Rousseau identifies practical challenges to recognize the complexity in establishing laws that citizens willingly obey, balancing ideal laws with human limitations

Further Key Ideas

• The legislator must often rely on indirect means, be it moral ,religous of mythical
• Successful legislators invoked moral symbolism
• 1.7: When refuse to follow the General Will, , they must be compelled to comply Sovereignty cannot be transferred, represented, or given away.

II.2 Sovereignty is Indivisible

Sovereignty is indivisible because it reflects the unified General Will of the community. Rousseau rejects political systems dividing sovereignty true must remain unified. different , but law-making authority cannot be split. - II.3 from (sum of individual interests).

• 1. General Wi
• 2. The legislator solves the "transition problem”