Origins+of+Inequality

toc =Background on the //Origin of Inequality//=

Rousseau's //Discourse on the Origin of Inequality,// published in 1755, is an extension of an earlier work, the //Discourse on the Arts and Sciences,// published in 1750. This work, which was submitted as a response to an essay contest offered by the Academy of Dijon, propounded that human morality and virtue had been corrupted by the advancement of the arts and sciences. The //Discourse on the Origin of Inequality// was submitted in the same essay contest five years later but did not win; however, it did solidify Rousseau's prominent place in the academic world. Building on his earlier discourse, Rousseau basically states in his //Origin of Inequality// that man is good by nature but that he has been corrupted by historical events, and the outcome of this is today's civil society. http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/rousseau.htm =Second Discourse on the Origins of Inequality=

"//The subject of the present discourse, therefore, is more precisely this. To mark, in the progress of things, the moment at which right took the place of violence and nature became subject to law, and to explain by what sequence of miracles the strong came to submit to serve the weak, and the people to purchse imaginary repose at the expense of real felicity."//

The main intention of this Discourse was to answer the question: //What is the origin of inequality among men and is it authorized by natural law?// Rousseau organized his response in five sections: An Epistle Dedicatory A Preface The Exordium The First Part The Second Part

=Epistle Dedicatory to Geneva= Rousseau begins with a dedication to the republic of Geneva because the city embodies the most perfect combination of natural and artificial inequality. Geneva represents the finest of all worlds as the city displays the best human characteristics while tolerating little abuse. Rousseau goes on to praise the city for its size, climate, liberty, importance of women in society, and the sound relationship between the people and magistrates. He ends by suggesting that the future happiness and success of Geneva depend upon the very things in which Rousseau holds to the highest regard.

= = =I: Preface= He claims there are two underlying principles prior to reason from which all other perceived rules can be derived: > Man does not act this way out of learned wisdom, but natural compassion towards all other creatures.
 * 1) Men are interested in our own welfare and preservation
 * 1) Men have a natural repugnance at seeing any other sensible being, especially humans, suffer pain or death

=**II: A Dissertation on the Origin and Foundation of the Inequality of Mankind**=


 * __Types of Inequality__**

Rousseau begins by pointing out what he believes to be the two main types of inequality. The first is **natural inequality**, because it is established by nature. This inequality consists of a variety of different physical attributes, such as age, health, strength, and sharpness of mind. The other type of inequality is what he calls **political inequality**, because it depends on different institutions that have been authorized by the consent of man. It consists of different privileges that some men enjoy to the prejudice of others, such as wealth, power, and respect. This form of inequality is of particular importance because it leads us to discovering the origins of inequality in society, specifically, the origins of hierarchy and power amongst men. The subject of his discourse is not to determine the source of natural inequality, nor is it to determine if there is any essential connection between the two inequalities. As Rousseau points out, those who are in power are not necessarily the ones blessed with utmost strength of body and mind. The real question, Rousseau asks, is how "violence and nature became subject to law." In other words, how did the strong come to obey the weak?

__**State of Nature?**__

Rousseau also introduces a criticism here which he has for the philosophers who have theorized about the foundation of society as emerging from a "state of nature." He states that these philosophers have inaccurately attributed to man within the state of nature such characteristics (i.e. desire, greed, and pride) that could only have been acquired with in an existing society. In describing the natural man, they have actually been describing social man. This leads Rousseau to declare the notion that it is very possible that the state of nature may never have existed.

He finishes his introduction with an overview of his historical account of man's progress towards society. He says:

//"The times of which I am going to speak are very remote: how much are you changed from what you once were!...There is, I feel, an age at which the individual man would wish to stop: you are about to inquire about the age at which you would have liked your whole species to stand still."//

Rousseau is trying to say here that man has undergone some important changes at some point during his past, and there was at one point an age in which man was in his most desireable state, a state which only lasted temporarily. What these changes are, and what this state was like, is the subject of the

=III: The First Part=

__**Man in his Natural Physical State**__

In the Preface, Rousseau asks the question, //"What experiments would have to be made, to discover the natural man? And how are those experiments to be made in a state of society?"// Rousseau at the outset of "The First Part" of his __Second Discourse on the Origins of Inequality__, takes man in his most basic form and talks about his development in the State of Nature. According to Rousseau:

//"...men would acquire a robust and almost unalterable constitution. The children...would thus acquire all the vigour of which the human frame is capable. Nature in this case treats them exactly as Sparta treated the children of her citizens..." pg. 10//

Here Rousseau contends that only the strongest children would survive nature's hardships and pass on to the next generation.

//"But savage man, living dispersed among other animals, and finding himself betimes in a situation to measure his strength with theirs, soon comes to compare himself with them...Set a bear or wolf, against a robust, agile, and resolute savage...and you will see that the danger will be at least on both sides..." pg. 10//

With these lines, Rousseau makes it clear that certain creatures are meant for the consumption by others. Here, it is clear Rousseau means that humans, being smarter and quicker than most beasts, have a natural right to killing animals

//"But man has other enemies more formidable, against which he is not provided with such means of defence: these are natural infirmities of infancy, old age, and illness of every kind.." pg. 11//

Rousseau indicates that man has less to fear from animals than death at the hands of old age and infancy. He attributes death by illness to man living in society, not in the State of Nature...Rousseau even goes as far as to say that man may be better off living the way nature intended him to, that is a simple and solitary way of life in the State of Nature. For in nature, man has no use for remedies as he is not afflicted by society-borne diseases.

//"In short...it is certain that, if the savage, when he is sick and left to himself, has nothing to hope but from nature, he has, on the other hand, nothing to fear but from his diesase; which renders his situation often preferable to our own." pg. 11//

Again, these lines indicate Rousseau's denunciation of societal structures bent on curing illness. Without society, such disease would not exist.

//"...as he becomes sociable and a slave, he grows weak, timid and servile; his effeminate way of life totally enervates his strength and courage..." pg. 11//

Society disrupts the natural tendencies of man, creating a "weaker" and more "servile" creature. Society offers a sense of security where the "Savage" may let his guard down and even indulge in some of the gifts society has to offer (abundance of food etc.). Rousseau argues that the man who first fashioned clothing or shelter for himself has become a weaker creature, as these things were unecessary at his bith. Such commodities contribute to the "taming" of the Savage.

//"Men in a state of nature being confined merely to what is physical in love, and fortunate enought to be ignorant of those excellences, which whet the appetite while they increase the difficulty of gratifying it, must be subject to fewer and less violent fits of passion, and consequently fall into fewer and less violent disputes."// (Book 1)

Rousseau offers this hypothetical description of man to illustrate the illegitimacy of modern society. For Rousseau, the state of nature is an ideal, which most societies cannot duplicate. This description of a "weaker" and more "servile" man illustrates this idea of Rousseau's.


 * __Man and Morality__**

//"I see nothing in any animal but an ingenious machine, to which nature hath given senses to wind itself up, and to guard itself, to a certain degree, against anything that might tend to disorder or destroy it. **I perceive exactly the same thing in the human machine..."**// pg. 13

Humans, however, naturally have more senses than beasts and thus utilize these senses freely. A key attribute to man in the State of Nature is his liberty to decide. Whereas animals obey nature, man can choose whether to obey or not.

//"...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..." pg. 13//

Passions seperate humans from animals. They "originate" our wants and serve as derivations of many of our actions. Passions aid in our understanding and fear of death, according to Rousseau, and again help seperate us from an animal state. According to Rousseau, man in his natural state lacks a sense of morality and justice. This fact is largely due to the idea that man is too ignorant to be either good nor bad, vile or vicious.


 * __How Man Leaves the State of Nature__**

Knowledge of Death:

//"...the knowledge of death and its terrors being one of the first acquisitions made by man in departing from an animal state."// (Book 1)

As man is savage in his natural state, his wants and desires do not extend past those wants that are physical in nature. His knowledge is limited and he wishes for only the necessities in life such as food, shelter, woman etc. Now, as soon as man develops an understanding beyond the physical, such as an abstract concept like death, he begins exiting the natural state. But what spurs such an understanding of abstract conecpts?...

Language:

Language is a testment to the progress of mankind. Humans first had to concieve of the fact that language is necessary. This necessity is preceeded by his claim that "//men need speech to learn to think"// (pg 14). Therefore, the art of speaking stemmed from the necessity of thinking. After men could think, they put conceptual ideas into the form of gestures and later sounds. As their ideas began to grow more abundant and complex, more sounds were added, along with tone inflections and gestures, to form a more "copious" language. This it becomes clear how man could begin to think more abstractly and begin communicating thougths and ideas to other humans. Language also spurred the rise of relationships between men. As men began to learn how to communicate feelings and desires, they naturally began communicating such things to other humans. This fact, according to Rousseau, also led to man's exit from his natural state

=IV: The Second Part=

//'"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 how many 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." (beginning of Book 2)//

This quotation clearly demonstrates Rousseau's angry view at the state of modern society. According to Rousseau, man has devloped in to a selfish and violent being, quite contrary to man in the state of nature. Book 2 traces the route of human development, starting with man just exiting the state of nature to man forming modern societies.

Mankind first begins to understand inequality between man...

"//This repeated relevance to various beings to himself, and one to another, would naturall give rise in the human mind to the perceptions of certain relations between them. Thus the relations which we denote by the terms, great, small, weak ,swift...must have at lenth produced in him a kind of reflection...which would indicate to him the precautions most necessary to his security..." (Book 2)//

Rousseau's words indicate the fledgling understanding amongst men of inequality in the new society. This understanding of inequality spurred the feelings of pride, envy etc., thus creating a self-interested creature. Man would not help out his neighbor and became selfish.

//The habit of living together soon gave rise to the finest feelings known to humanity, conjugal love and paternal affection. Every family became a little society..." (Book 2)//

These mini societies dulled the ferocity and strength of man as he became concerned with other things. Men could no longer take on wild beasts by themselves because they lost this knowledge. Men continuted to lay aside their "//original wildness"// and instead began embracing the finer things in life, such as dancing, singing, and playing. Because of the development of these fledgling societies...

"//Morality began to appear in human actions, and every one, before the institution of law, was the only judge and avenger of the injuries done to him, so that the goodness which was suitable in the pure state of nature was no longer proper in the new-born state of society. Punishments had to be made more severe, as oppurtunities of offending became more frequent."//

Rousseau argues here that society began breeding corruption. When he speaks of morality, he is not saying mankind began to care more about his fellow man. Instead, the development of morality proceeded inequality and corruption. Thus, the mere presence of a sense of morality indicates inequality. According to Rousseau, man was better off in his ignorant natural state, much like the "Savages" of the new world. His feelings are best illustrated in the following quotation...

"//But from the moment on man began to stand in need of the help of another; from the moment it appeared advantageous to any one man to have enough provisions for two, equality disppeared, property was introduced, work became indispensable, and the vast forests became smiling fields." (Book 2)//

Thus, it is here clear that inequality bred the understanding of morality and justice. Man became aware of the poor and less fortunate and could choose whether to help or not. In the staet of nature, this choice did not exist, as eveyone was equal and man largely left each other alone. Rousseau states that equality could have existed in society had every one's talents been equal. However, in society, the strongest did most of the work and the smartest devised ways to make more money. This inequality led to greed and exploitation...

//"Usurptations by the rich, robbery by the poor, and the unbridled passions of both, suppressed the cries of natural compassion and the still feeble voice of justice, and filled men with avarice, ambition and vice...[which] brought themselves to the brink of ruin."// (Book 2)

These "unbridled passions" eventually led men to band together and form armies and elect soveriegns who could protect the people from the marauding bands. This further pushed men to the brink of ruin as men...

//"...at length men massacred their fellow-creatures by thousands without so much as knowing why, and committed more murders in a single day's fighting, and more violent outrages in the sack of a single town, than were committed in the stae of nature during whole ages over the whole earth."// (Book 2)

End Game:

So where exactly does Rousseau suggest modern society go? He first states that any society must honor the essential gifts of nature, which are life and liberty. He writes...

//"...men may dispose of what they possess as they please: but this is not the case with the essential gifts of nature, such as life and liberty, which every man is permitted to enjoy...By giving up one, we degrade our being;by giving up the other, we do our best to annul it...it would be an offence against both reason and nature to renouce them at any price whatsoever."// (Book 2)

Rousseau seems to suggest an egalitarian, socialist society with very close ties to the state of nature. Rousseau believes that man has progressed such that he can no longer return to his natural state. However, there are some legitimte societies which respect life and liberty and live by the tenets of mankind in his natural state.

=Study Questions= >
 * Does Rousseau think the state of nature is something we can go back to?
 * What is the difference between natural and moral inequalities? Does one kind lead to the other?
 * How does Rousseau's State of Nature contrast from Locke's?
 * What sort of similarities exist between Locke and Rousseau's understandings of the State of Nature
 * What does the state of nature tell us about the legitimate states of society?