Jean-Jacques Rousseau

on
Inequality

Name: Yehya Bilal

Roll Number: 2020/BAPB/0054
Course: BA Program (Philosophy + Political Science)
Paper: Themes in Comparative Political Theory
Introduction:

Rousseau Swiss born French philosopher, was a great Thinker,

whose interest laid in a wide range of fields, in particular economy,
politics, and education. He has been one of the greatest figures of
the French enlightenment. He is pained to witness inequality,
corruption vanity book in individual and public life. His views on
the origin of inequality are widely appreciated.

Jean Jacques Rousseau was a French moral and political thinker.

He became the champion of the principle of modernity such as
liberty, equality and fraternity which inspired the French
Revolution. He was against the modern thinking of political and
economic progress and preferred the system of the city state. He
criticized European progress which is possible due to social
inequality and violence. In his book, 'Origin arid Foundation of
Inequality among Men', he outlived the factors for the origin of
inequality. His work, 'Social Contract’ was an attempt to build a
society, based upon liberty, equality and fraternity.
What, according to Rousseau, were the types of inequalities
and the discrimination that came with it?
Inequality is the universal feature of all societies and its opposition
has been fundamental to all social relations. However, inequality is
defended in the contemporary society on the grounds of colour;
caste, race, sex, age, cultural or wealth grounds. Rousseau made
distinction between natural and physical inequality and the moral-
political inequality. The natural inequality is established by nature
and consists of differences such as those of age, physical strength,
qualities of mind and soul. Natural human inequalities are natural
differences. No political thinker has claimed that men are equal.
Moral and political inequality owes its existence to social
institutions and consists of the privileges of wealth, honor and
power. It depends on the convention and is established by the
consent of men. This consists of the privileges which some men
enjoy being rich, more powerful or even in a position to violate
laws. The difference between two types of inequalities is called
similar-different and equal-un-equal relations. Rousseau clarified
that natural inequality is self-evident. Social inequalities are
responsible for discrimination. Just like the difference between the
master, slaves and different races.
How did Rousseau define the origins inequality?
Rousseau's views on inequality are found in his book, 'Discourses
on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality among Men'. He said
that the state of nature consisted of two stages. In the first stage,
man was noble and lovely savage wandering in the forests. There
was no war. There was perfect peace; no one wanted help from
each other as man led a fall, equal and self-sufficient life. He was
neither social nor anti social and he could hardly distinct between
right and wrong. He was a ‘noble savage’ and a creature of
peaceful ignorance. However, this peaceful state of nature did not
lost for long. With the rise of population and emergence of
property, there arose the germs of civilization. In his own words,
the first man who having enclosed a price of land, he thought,
himself of saying this is mine and found people simple enough to
believe him was the real founder of property and civil society.
Those who possessed property soon assumed the role of employer.
Thus, property became responsible for inequality.
The other reason given for inequality is the agriculture and
discovery of metals. The cultivators claim possession of land. Man
also developed the habit of living together. Thus, development of
family system and institution of property became the reasons for
conflict among groups. Working on the fields and growing crops
gave birth to slavery and misery. The evil effects of institution of
property were felt soon. There were evils of egoism, selfishness,
competition, robbery and rivalry. All these were responsible for
growing inequality. Such a horrible state of society freed men,
particularly the rich, to reflect on the whole wretched situation.
They, therefore, planned what Rousseau calls the profoundest plan
to employ in their favor the forces of those who attacked them. Just
as the man who put up the fence created the civil society, now a
new pioneer came along to suggest that society cannot exist
without political authority. A law was originated which lodged rich
to destroy the liberty of the poor. This gave birth to slavery. From
Rousseau's point of view, both the society and the state thus
created are not the legitimate institutions. Men were bound to
believe that they need common power to secure justice and to
establish a peaceful place.

How did Rousseau define the ramifications it had on the

society?
As we find from above that the central organizing principle of
society became property and it became the guiding force for
human behavior.

With the development of property, egoism and materialism

dominated the society. Man felt that property is necessary to
remain superior as for a successful man there must be a man who
is a failure, for the one who gains public esteem, there must be one
who fails to achieve it. The relations between man and man could
not be based on love, spontaneity or generosity, rather all men
must resume role of either exploiters or exploited. Inequality
brought corruption. It magnified vanity and its evil effects made
the poor subservient to the rich. It created differences between
men. Some considered themselves superior. Since everyone cannot
be superior so they behaved in a manner to harm or hurt others.
Due to inequality, there was competition among men. Rousseau
said that inequality is an obstacle to political freedom. Since most
of the people are depending on law, the political judgment is
impossible.
Point out the notion of ‘General Will’ and Rousseau’s notion
of ‘Progress’.
Rousseau believed this notion of ‘superiority’ weakens devotion to
the community and so makes it less likely that they will want what
accords with the General Will. He says 'patriotism' encourages
virtue and every man is virtuous when his particular will conform
to the General Will, i.e. when what we want is what those whom
we love also want. The more equal the members of a community
are, the deeper is their sense, stronger their love of justice, and
quicker their sympathy for the neighbour. But inequality is
stronger, the rich and the socially exalted look upon the
community as their own, while the poor feel themselves as the
victims of the community and their devotion to it is weakened.
Rousseau says that the progress we see in the society is also
responsible for inequality. In raising inequality out of equality we
have not only raised the man rather dug a pit for him. All the
equalities which prevail now owe its strength and growth to the
development of our faculties and the advancement of the human
mind. Those who sit aside the mountain created by man's
intelligence and skill are very fearful that they will tumble into
gaping abyss, at its foot. And those in the lower depths scramble
over each other to attain the success and avoid the stigma of failure
by which societies judge all men. If this is progress, Rousseau is not
in favor of it.

In short, there was no inequality in the state of nature. It has been

due to the institution of the private property and its evils. The so-
called progress took man away from natural peace and property.
State of nature was a perfect place but spoiled of the growth of
population, property and so called civilization. They destroyed
natural liberty and equality.
How, according to Rousseau, can we deal with this problem
of inequality?
Now, according to Rousseau, a question arises how to abolish
inequality and establish natural liberty and equality and should the
civil society with so much progress be abolished or should a new
society be formed by a social contract where man can be made as
naturally equal and free as he was before?

Rousseau rejected the first proposal and suggested social contract

to equality. This is possible, says, Rousseau, if we form and
association which will defend and protect, with the whole common
force, the erosion and goods of each associate and in which each
individual while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself
alone, and remain as free as before. In his social contact, he writes,
'Each of us places in common his person and his whole power
under the supreme direction of the General Will and in return we
receive every member as an individual part of the whole. He
wanted to create society, which rather than authorizing
inequalities based on property will promote equality based on the
inherent identity of all men. This is the foremost take of politics. If
we have to create a just society, then the democratic state based on
General Will is necessary. In this, every individual has a share to
reconcile his existence in the society with political authority.

Being a critique of the institution of ‘property’, Rousseau

never believed in its abolition. Why?
Nevertheless, Rousseau has criticized the institution of property
but he does not recommend its abolition. He was neither socialist
nor a communist. He saw that the law and the state must ensure
enough property for every individual so that even the poorest are
not dependent on the rich. Freedom is secured among the equals.
Men are not equal if they have same income but when each is
economically independent and not dependent for his livelihood on
others. While condemning the institution of property, Rousseau
favors the establishment of a public domain whose revenue is to
defray the cost of government. The people should work for the
state rather than paying taxes. In this way, an individual will be the
master of his estate and at the same time he will serve the
community. It preserves his independence and enhances
patriotism. What Rousseau had in his mind is that unlimited right
to property is source and continuing means of exploitation. Only
limited right is justified. Earlier man had property as a piece of land
for cultivation but later it resulted into division of society between
have and have not.

He justified limited right to property in consistent with 'General

Will'. He said that the true democratic society will be the one that
would be governed by the 'General Will' and it required such an
equality of property where no citizen shall be wealthy enough to
buy another or poor enough to be forced to sell him. However,
equality for Rousseau does not exclude hierarchy or rich and poor
in society. If men are to be their own masters, then some must be
richer than others because some will be more fortunate. All this is
justified so long as distinction in rank springs from the seniority of
services rendered to the community and is not based on the variety
of wealth.
Conclusion
Rousseau's remedy to remove inequality is valuable. It is accepted
fact that equality and freedom go hand in hand. There cannot be
fair elections if equality is missing. Economically, man should be
independent. Only then one can serve the community. Rousseau's
thinking may be summed up in the words of Prof. Hearnshaw. He
says, 'He (Rousseau) displays the people as the ultimate source of
political authority.....he stressed the view that state is social
organisation, it is a common conscience and General Will; he
maintains the doctrine that true basis of political organisation is
consent, be proclaims the possibility of ultimate reconciliation of
freedom and authority. He takes a high place among political
idealists'.

References:

 Discourse on Inequality, Jean-Jacques Rousseau

 Rousseau’s Writings on Inequality, E Friedlander
 Western Political Thought, Brian R Nelson
 Rousseau’s Critique of Inequality,  F Neuhouser
 A Methodological Criticism of Rousseau’s Discourse on
Inequality, Makovi and Michael