JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU | Politics

“Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Introduction,” pp. 418-421; Discourse on the Origin of

Inequality, pp. 422-437; Of the Social Contract, Books 1-2 (entire), pp. 437-449;
Book 3 (part VI only), pp. 455-458; Book 4 (part II only), pp. 459-460

Source Information:
Cohen, Joshua. “Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Introduction.” In Political Philosophy: The Essential
Texts, 3rd ed, edited by Steven M. Cahn, 418-421. Oxford: University Press, 2015.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality.” In Political Philosophy: The
Essential Texts, 3rd ed, edited by Steven M. Cahn, 422-436. Oxford: University Press, 2015.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. “Of the Social Contract.” In Political Philosophy: The Essential Texts,
3rd ed, edited by Steven M. Cahn, 437-465. Oxford: University Press, 2015.

Notes:
Slide 2: Outline of Lectures on Rousseau
● Overview of his life and work
● Discourses on the Origin of Inequality
○ State of nature
○ Origin of property
○ Origin of inequality
● Of the Social Contract
○ Social Contract
○ General Will
○ Direct democracy
○ Absolute sovereignty
Slide 3
● Lifetime: 1712-1778 → born in Switzerland, in a republic then living in France
which explicitly embraced monarchy under absolutism (Hobbes’ recommendation)
● One of the first four enlightenment thinkers
● Century of progress and intermittent war between Locke’s lifetime and Rousseau’s
● Era of progress: introduction of the Enlightenment
○ Definition from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “the century of philosophy
par excellence”, because of the tremendous intellectual and scientific progress of
the age, but also because of the expectation of the age that philosophy (in the
broad sense of the time, which includes the natural and social sciences) would
dramatically improve human life.
 ● A major figure in the Enlightenment who writes about why he thinks we need democracy
and what is wrong with monarchy
Slide 4
His work
● Overturns the state of nature; critical of social, economic, and political inequality;
supports direct, non-representative democracy; the first to talk about the “general will”
● Turns the ‘state of nature” and “social contract” on their heads
● Supported direct democracy
● “The general will”
Slide 5
What is “Natural Man”?
● Concerned about humans in the natural state (women didn’t matter...apparently)
● Natural Human: one who is free from social, cultural, traditional norms → the belief
that if you strip away their socialization, you would find their natural human nature
○ Natural Human Nature vs. Socialized Human Nature → this idea is now
rejected by modern psychology
■ We know what it’s natural for humans to do (make societies, establish
rules, impose rules, to socialize and interact THEREFORE it is wrong to
raise a child without socialization
● Attempt to never socialize a child produces a feral child: a child
who cannot properly function in society
Slide 6

Hobbes Rousseau

social institutions civilize us social institutions corrupt us → there are

things in our nature that make us naturally
moral and kind, but there are things within
social institutions that make us immoral and
hateful

● To what extent do our social institutions corrupt us? civilize us? → both debates are a
little bit right and a little bit wrong
Slide 7
A review of Hobbes’ State of Nature
● Definition State of Nature: the absence of government, that’s it
○ No morality or immorality because that’s from a social contract which doesn’t
exist in the SON
 ○ There would be a war of all against all, therefore it would be impossible for us
to establish society → THEREFORE society is the absence of a state, the
consequence of establishing a government and moving out of the State of
Nature
○ No society, no socialization → no society because there is no government to
enforce the social contract
● Was concerned with understanding what is “Natural Man”
Slide 8
Rousseau asks: What are people like in the absence of Society or ? NOT in the absence of the
state but in the absence of society
● Hence, Native Americans before colonization do not fit Rousseau’s definition
because even though they were stateless, they had established societies → therefore
they do not represent the absence of society (but he’s still racist)
○ Did believe that the stateless nature of natives meant they were still in the
State of Nature and has advantages over his established society → meaning
they should take characteristics
Slide 9-10
Objective of Discourse on the Origin of Inequality
● “Corrupts rich and poor in some ways” → Hobbes says they civilize us
○ Create inequality which creates antagonism
● Reverse beliefs about the State of Nature: people in the SON were more equal and
happier in some ways than they are now → more freedom to roam and establish one’s
own land
● The inequality in our society creates antagonism that corrupts rich and poor in different
ways
○ Question: Where does inequality come from? → In part from the unequal
acquisition of property and money
Slide 11
Rousseau wanted to get a “true picture of the state of nature”
● Believed the SON was the absence of SOCIETY
Slide 12
Graeber & Wengrow:
● Rousseau's State of Nature is a thought experiment
● “The researches on which we may engage on this occasion are not to be taken for
historical truths, but merely as hypothetical and conditional reasonings, fitter to
illustrate the nature of things, than to show their true origin, like those systems, which
our naturalists daily make of the formation of the world.”
Slide 13
Rousseau’s State of Nature
● The absence of society → everyone lives in solitude, no concept exists of “mine” and
“yours”, no concept of Justice since there are no human interactions
● Violence is thought of an injury rather than a crime (i.e. murder is the same thing as
being hit by a lightning bolt → it just happens)
● We have…
○ No concept of mine and yours
○ No true conception of justice
○ No speech,
○ no home,
○ no desire to hurt each other because there’s enough resources and land for
everyone
Slide 14
People are self-sufficient in the state of nature. Therefore…
● Everyone is free, no need to obey anybody else
● Inequality is created by social institutions → we wouldn’t be unequal if there were no
social norms to establish expectations and competition (Little inequality exists)
- THEREFORE: all the inequality in the world is built by us through social
institutions
● Solitary
Slide 15
“It is impossible to make any man a slave, unless he be first reduced to a situation in which he
cannot do without the help of others”
● We all need the help of others but that doesn’t make us slaves, it makes us vulnerable
→ we can’t do without the help of others
○ Rousseau says pay a lot of attention to that vulnerability
Slide 16
We all learn to ignore our compassion
● Dehumanization of people: For example, an Emperor who constantly kills and pillages
people, will have to hold back his tears at a play that confronts him with (fictional
tragedy)
Slide 18
Why is the State of Nature peaceful?
● People followed their natural instincts
● No corrupting institutions, no corrupting influence
● No conflicting interests
 ● People follow their natural instincts → “Compassion, this innate repugnance at seeing
a fellow creature suffer, is one of our natural instincts” because it is distressing to
observe people suffering
○ Children learn through society to suppress the natural urge to help others
Slide 19
● There is no morality or immorality in the SON, but we don’t need morality or immorality
○ Compassion is suppressed by one’s logical mind: believing that those who need
help didn’t properly use their resources to make their situations better
“It is this compassion that hurries us without reflection to the relief of those who
are in distress: it is this which in a state of nature supplies the place of laws,
morals, and virtues”
Slide 20-21
How then does inequality develop?
● “The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This
is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil
society.”
“From how many crimes wars, and murders, from horrors and misfortunes might not
any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying
to his fellows, ‘Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget
that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself belongs to nobody.”
● The great inequality of our property is what creates the problem of inequality: when
someone has resources while someone else doesn’t
Slide 22
At this point…
● Society, sedentism, and inequality begin
● Gender roles and discrimination begin
● Speech begins
● People feel like they need to consume
● People begin to value esteem
● People become dependent on others
○ Humans have always relied on socialization to survive and have not preferred
permanent solitude
○ Dependence creates opportunity for corruption
● Metaphor for infancy
○ Do not know the difference between conflict and harmony → have no
conflict of interests
○ Hobbes’ retort: older infants (i.e. aged 2 and above) can be violent and ill-
mannered → Rousseau’s retort: a lot of socialization
 ● Find the corrupting elements in a society and get rid of them → there are corrupting
elements in a society that must be regarded then destroyed
Slide 23
Property creates…
● Conflicting interests → owning the stuff that we make stuff out of, having control
over one’s own resources
○ Creates a desire to profit at another’s expense → many people will try to
manipulate the economic system for their own benefit
○ Creates inequality, which is corrupting
Slide 24
The division of people into owners and servants corrupts both
● Some must sell themselves to survive, while others do not, placing people into three
categories (within all of which they learn to detest the wealthy):
○ Servile: servicemen and women, taking the subordinate position in order to
make a livelihood → the “yes sir, no sir” position that is degrading and requires
one to constantly act amiably
■ Causes the servant to disrespect those they serve, and is hard for those
who are being served to respect those who are servile
○ Beggars
○ Thieves
Slide 25
Against Locke’s labor-mixing argument
● Not against property but against Locke’s argument, for Rousseau:
○ To the appropriator: “what right do you have to demand payment of us for what
we never asked you to do?”
○ Believes property is useful
Property creates:
- Conflicting interests
- A desire to profit at another’s expense
- Inequality
The division of people into owners and servants corrupts both:
- Poor become servile or beggars or thieves
- The wealthy take pleasure in command and learn to distain their workers.
Slide 26
Of the Social Contract:
● Discusses political legitimacy & political obligation
Slide 27
On Political Obligation
 Rousseau Hobbes

People are obliged to obey only legitimate
force
The sovereign has to be not only powerful
enough to be sovereign but must also be
legitimate → has a higher standard of
legitimacy than Locke
It doesn’t matter whether or not the sovereign
is legitimate because a sovereign’s rule does
not have to be justified or justified - it just is
because they exist in the State of Nature

A sovereign does not make peace, he starts Sovereign is there to establish peace by
war → kings start a lot more wars than enforcing the social contracts
democratic governments (wars of
succession)

Binding your children → the social contract Did not discuss the social contract as
ties down ones descendants to the binding for a family but rather as something
obligations proposed that is signed because society needs it →
therefore Rousseau’s argument is fallacious
Slide 27
Principles of Legitimate Democracy
● Liberty: relive dependence → requires equality
○ If there is too much inequality, it creates dependence and lack of liberty
● Equality: “no citizen so opulent to be able to buy another and none so poor to be
constrained to sell himself”
○ Being supra-dependent on others for the provision of resources and livelihood
Slide 29
Legitimate Democracy
● Only a direct democracy with mutual obligation and equal burdens for all
○ Argument of equality vs. equity??
● The people voting together without discussion or faction have absolute sovereignty
○ Discussion will lead to factions → otherization of those who are not in that
faction
■ Without factionalism, everybody can make independent, reasonable
decisions → but this sounds impractical and crazy
○ the people do not vote for a parliament, they directly vote on laws
○ vote on people as administrators for those who are given sovereignty
Slide 30
Don’t dismiss…
● Direct democracy might be impractical
● No discussion might be a bad solution to factionalism
 ● But the deeper points are:
○ No matter what practical government is in place, the people should always be the
ultimate sovereign
○ We need some strategy to reduce or eliminate factionalism
Slide 31
In a legitimate democracy, a person “obeys only himself, and remains as free as before”
● Individually, you can logically decide which laws are best for yourself and your
neighbors → this way, you are just as free as in the State of Nature, but now with
voting and decision-making rights
● If factionalism exists: you live under the laws of the largest, most vocal factions
Slide 32
Under legitimate democracy, individuals retain no rights
● Why is sovereignty absolute? / Why are there no rights?
● What then, since the individual attains no rights, protects the individual?
Slide 33
1: Why absolute sovereignty?
● Same reason as Hobbes: The sovereign has to be absolute → if the sovereign rules
against you, there exists no one to whom you may refer to because the sovereign is
the highest authority
Slide 34
○ There is no one to call, above the sovereign, to resolve conflict between the
sovereign and an individual
○ The only way to
● In Hobbes: the sovereign is the absolute monarch
● In Rousseau: the sovereign is all the people assembled together
● Against Hobbes:
- People are obliged to obey only legitimate force
- Sovereign doesn’t secure; he makes war
- Even if people could bind themselves to the sovereign; they could not bind their
children.
Slide 35
2: What protects the individual?
● Laws have to be equally burdensome on everyone → they must be reasonable
“No one has any interest in making it burdensome to others.”
○ The equal burdensomeness of the laws & the equal right to make laws & the lack
of factionalism
● Appeal to the reasonableness of those around you → appeal to the majority of your
neighbors if you feel an issue is problematic for a minority
 ○ Appealing to the reasonableness of your neighbors will help everyone agree on
laws that are good for (most) everyone
○ Will encourage everyone to be open-minded and considerate of their neighbors so
they may live harmoniously
● The General Will: the sovereign’s interest is the people’s interest as a whole; not a
balance between their private interests
○ In leaving the SON and entering society: People lose their natural liberty and gain
civil liberty and property
○ They remain as free as before
Slide 36
If you have all of these things then: The majority decision is the will of the minority
● The general will: the laws people think are reasonable to live under
● It is possible that some will fail to understand what is the general will, and what is a
reasonable decision for everyone
● “When an opinion contrary to mine prevails, that only proves that I was mistaken.”
● Question: When we vote, are we judges of what is right or are we representatives of our
own interests?
○ In Rousseau’s world, probably the former because we should ideally decide what
is best for society as a whole and that should, by extension, define our own
interests
Slide 37
“Whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be constrained to do so by the whole body;
which means nothing less than he shall be forced to be free.”
Slide 38
What if people vote to establish a king or representative government?
● Even if the king is created by majority vote, his rule is not immediately considered
legitimate if he does not follow the general will
Slide 39
What is wrong with monarchy?
● Promotes rascals
● Leaders should know how to obey
***
Recitation
1. How do you reflect on Rousseau’s idea of his State of Nature? What do you agree and
disagree with?
a. Agree: it is a metaphor for infancy but this State of Nature cannot be generalized
for an entire civilization
b. Fallacy: our society is civilized, anyone else’s is automatically their
2. How does Rousseau’s State of Nature relate to Hobbes’ and Locke’s?
a. Similarities: basic equality
b. Rousseau: people are independent, there is freedom and peace in the SON
 c. Hobbes: people interact and their interactions are violent producing a state of
chaos and turmoil due to the lack of governing
d. Locke: similar to Rousseau, everyone has control over the land they control
3. What are Rousseau’s objections to Hobbes’ social contract?
4. How does dependence lead to corruption?
a. If someone controls your livelihood, such as the government in Russia,
through omnipresent control of the resources allocated to the citizenry → the
proliferation of basic necessities are controlled by those in power, demanding
dependency
i. Controlled by basic necessities: the assumption that life is valued over all
else is what causes dependency
b. Factionalism: people will feel dependent and rely upon those who have the
same ideologies and beliefs → linked to tyranny of the majority
c. Choices people face are not their own, it’s either an option between two extremes,
that you do this or ultimately face these consequences
d. Disagreement: People are not always dependent on others because they will
naturally work in their own self interest so they will only be dependent if it
provides direct benefit for themselves
5. In Hobbes, industries should restrain natural instincts, but Rousseau believes that
institutions should not exist in order to limit the restraint on natural instincts. What do
you think?
a. Survival of the Fittest: people will become corrupt if they feel it is needed in order
to survive
b. Everyone is inherently good: the growth of compassion
c. Society is made up of individuals, you cannot generalize whether or not the
society will be good or bad by generalizing the
6. The idea of property: because of property, doesn’t this cause increased corruption due to
greed and other vices?
a. Envy of other subsistence farmers will cause others to instigate conflict with those
they feel have more or a disproportionate amount to what they have
b. Dependency: the lack of corruption and conflict is due to the division of labor
and the specialization of processes → dependency in this case produces
collaboration and cooperation
c. Good intentions of property: political control and guidelines to what can and
cannot be owned, such as ownership over someone’s life and public utility goods
to ensure property rights
 i. A lot easier for people to accept what they have and not want more,
rather than to give up what they have → except in modern-day society,
people are willing to give up their .such as with gambling
7. What is the cause of inequality?
a. Social institutions: pitting people against each other and trying to prove one’s
highest placement in the hierarchy
b. Factionalism
c. Speech
d. Over-consumption and materialism, overvaluing of money and wealth
8. What is the General Will in Rousseau?
a. The will of the people as a whole, the common good and common interest of
a society → the majority decision is the will of the minority
b. The majority may not know what the minority wants, but at least there is a chance
to please most everyone
c. Collective knowledge would only work if a highly educated population exists,
otherwise the educated minority will be overruled by the uneducated minority
9. Do you agree with Rousseau’s agreement?
a. His agreement is a lot more applicable with modern-day perceptions of the
government → deciding how to best listen to the arguments of all those in a
society, whether or not they are the minority
i. This is what millenials talk about, ya know.
b. If you believe that morality is innate, then Rousseau’s State of Nature seems
much more logical and believable, that people will not automatically result to
violence

Keywords:
● Liberty
● Equality
● Thought experiment
● Sovereign
● General will