ROUSSEAU

Rousseau’s project in the Discourse on Inequality is to describe all the sorts of inequality that
exist among human beings and to determine which sorts of inequality are “natural” and
which “unnatural” (and therefore preventable). Rousseau begins by discussing man in his state
of nature. For Rousseau, man in his state of nature is essentially an animal like any other,
driven by two key motivating principles: pity and self-preservation. In the state of nature,
which is more a hypothetical idea than an actual historical epoch, man exists without reason or
the concept of good and evil, has few needs, and is essentially happy. The only thing that
separates him from the beasts is some sense of unrealized perfectability.

This notion of perfectability is what allows human beings to change with time, and according to
Rousseau it becomes important the moment an isolated human being is forced to adapt to his
environment and allows himself to be shaped by it. When natural disasters force people to move
from one place to another, make contact with other people, and form small groups or elementary
societies, new needs are created, and men begin to move out of the state of nature toward
something very different. Rousseau writes that as individuals have more contact with one another
and small groupings begin to form, the human mind develops language, which in turn
contributes to the development of reason. Life in the collective state also precipitates the
development of a new, negative motivating principle for human actions. Rousseau calls this
principle amour propre, and it drives men to compare themselves to others. This drive toward
comparison to others is not rooted only in the desire to preserve the self and pity others. Rather,
comparison drives men to seek domination over their fellow human beings as a way of
augmenting their own happiness.

Rousseau states that with the development of amour propre and more complex human
societies, private property is invented, and the labor necessary for human survival is divided
among different individuals to provide for the whole. This division of labor and the beginning of
private property allow the property owners and nonlaborers to dominate and exploit the poor.
Rousseau observes that this state of affairs is resented by the poor, who will naturally seek war
against the rich to end their unfair domination. In Rousseau’s history, when the rich recognize this
fact, they deceive the poor into joining a political society that purports to grant them the
equality they seek. Instead of granting equality, however, it sanctifies their oppression and makes
an unnatural moral inequality a permanent feature of civil society.

Rousseau’s argument in the Discourse is that the only natural inequality among men is the
inequality that results from differences in physical strength, for this is the only sort of inequality
that exists in the state of nature. As Rousseau explains, however, in modern societies the
creation of laws and property have corrupted natural men and created new forms of
inequality that are not in accordance with natural law. Rousseau calls these unjustifiable,
unacceptable forms of inequality moral inequality, and he concludes by making clear that this
sort of inequality must be contested.

Rousseau begins The Social Contract with the most famous words he ever wrote: “Men are born
free, yet everywhere are in chains.” From this provocative opening, Rousseau goes on to describe
the myriad ways in which the “chains” of civil society suppress the natural birthright of man to
physical freedom. He states that the civil society does nothing to enforce the equality and individual
liberty that were promised to man when he entered into that society. For Rousseau, the only
legitimate political authority is the authority consented to by all the people, who have agreed
to such government by entering into a social contract for the sake of their mutual
preservation.

Rousseau describes the ideal form of this social contract and also explains its philosophical
underpinnings. To Rousseau, the collective grouping of all people who by their consent enter
into a civil society is called the sovereign, and this sovereign may be thought of,
metaphorically at least, as an individual person with a unified will. This principle is important,
for while actual individuals may naturally hold different opinions and wants according to their
individual circumstances, the sovereign as a whole expresses the general will of all the people.
Rousseau defines this general will as the collective need of all to provide for the common good of all.

For Rousseau, the most important function of the general will is to inform the creation of the laws of
the state. These laws, though codified by an impartial, noncitizen “lawgiver,” must in their essence
express the general will. Accordingly, though all laws must uphold the rights of equality among
citizens and individual freedom, Rousseau states that their particulars can be made according to
local circumstances. Although laws owe their existence to the general will of the sovereign, or
the collective of all people, some form of government is necessary to carry out the executive
function of enforcing laws and overseeing the day-to-day functioning of the state.

Rousseau writes that this government may take different forms, including monarchy,
aristocracy, and democracy, according to the size and characteristics of the state, and that all
these forms carry different virtues and drawbacks. He claims that monarchy is always the
strongest, is particularly suitable to hot climates, and may be necessary in all states in times
of crisis. He claims that aristocracy, or rule by the few, is most stable, however, and in most
states is the preferable form.
Rousseau acknowledges that the sovereign and the government will often have a frictional
relationship, as the government is sometimes liable to go against the general will of the people.
Rousseau states that to maintain awareness of the general will, the sovereign must convene in
regular, periodic assemblies to determine the general will, at which point it is imperative that
individual citizens vote not according to their own personal interests but according to their
conception of the general will of all the people at that moment. As such, in a healthy state, virtually
all assembly votes should approach unanimity, as the people will all recognize their common
interests. Furthermore, Rousseau explains, it is crucial that all the people exercise their
sovereignty by attending such assemblies, for whenever people stop doing so, or elect
representatives to do so in their place, their sovereignty is lost. Foreseeing that the conflict
between the sovereign and the government may at times be contentious, Rousseau also advocates
for the existence of a tribunate, or court, to mediate in all conflicts between the sovereign and the
government or in conflicts between individual people.