Analysis Of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Concept Of The Human’s State
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a philosopher in the 18th century, theorized that there are two states of man: the natural state or half, and the citizen or civil half. Rousseau believed our natural state is our better state, we are better off in a state of nature before society, which is contrary to fellow modernity philosopher Thomas Hobbes’ beliefs. There are two basic guiding principles to human nature that drive human beings. One being self preservation and the other being a natural compassion for others. Human beings in a state of nature exists in a sort of utopian state, very content and without conflict. “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. ” Rousseau believed that individuals were born as blank slates and were neither sensible nor unhealthy. Rousseau's thinking was that it was madness for people to forfeit their natural freedom for a state in which they lived without freedom. He argued that people ought to have the right to decide the government and laws that rule them. Rousseau blames society for having remodeled and corrupted man, who was originally innocent, so he criticizes the social contract tradition. This quote is the foundation for the social contract and sets up the distinction between the two parts of man Rousseau makes clear later on. Man is born in a natural state, then is exposed to conventional civil traits which takes away the original state of nature. He essentially describes the qualities of a ‘citizen’ as sins. Selfishness, greed, lack of pity, etc. Rousseau comes to divide these two distinct parts in man basically pre and post cohabitation. A man of nature does not possess reason or language therefore he cannot create complex thoughts, which happens to be the fuel for the civil half of man. Rousseau makes the difference of a natural state and civil state more clear with this by describing a man of nature as having very few qualities that separate himself from any other animal. Rousseau critiques the civil half of man mostly using psychological features to separate himself from the natural man, this includes a gain of self awareness and the tendency to compare oneself to others. It is seen as the beginning of the break down of Rousseau’s natural/virtuous man, and the loss of natural man’s natural pity. A man of nature is seen to be one of virtue. The Social Contract is an attempt to bring more aspects of the nature half of man back to humanity, therefore I believe the Social Contract’s ultimate goal is to teach us as a whole to be more virtuous in nature. When there is no property, there is no violence, no real problems.
Rousseau claims the state of nature dissolves when human beings create property. We create property in efforts to make society more efficient but in doing this we become capable of qualities such as greed. With property, thoughts emerge in our minds tempting us to take more, and have more than what we actually need, which is the opposite mentality of man in a state of nature. This is when Rousseau believes human beings become corrupt. When ownership is introduced we can see things like slavery and tyrany arise in soceities that otherwise would not exist had property not been established. “The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms that strength into right. ” A society founded on tyranny is a society doomed to fail. Rousseau argues a legitimate society is one in which free people freely enter. He seems not to notice that his theory opens the door for revolution, because if free people freely enter a legitimate society, they can also freely leave it. With this being said, when property and ownership are introduced, the idea of a natural state of man becomes replaced in a way by the ‘citizen’. Rousseau created the Social Contract as a response to this, with the idea that human beings have lost their way. He does not seem to take the stance that the natural human can be fully restored but he believes we can be a lot closer to our natural state than we are at the moment. It is important to note that just because man has veered away from a state of nature, it does not mean the nature half of man ceases to exist. I don’t believe the civil man has pushed the natural man to the side, but rather the natural and civil man have fused into one, of course with varying distributions of civil and natural traits per individual. The Social Contract is an agreement in the way an individual enters society; people place restraints on their behavior to be able to live in a community. As a result, people gain the freedom of thinking rationally and morally. Rousseau believes the only way to become fully human is by entering the Social Contract. Thus, there are three stages investigated: (a) the state of nature, where man is free and independent, (b) society, in which man is oppressed and dependent on others, and (c) the state under the Social Contract, in which, ironically, man becomes free through obligation; he is solely independent through dependence on law. This final portion analyses his paradoxical solution to end the corruption of mankind through reeducation and the Social Contract emphasizing liberty through the obligation to follow laws and the General Will. When we have the collective act of everyone giving up everything for everyone else, it naturally brings about the emergence of the General Will. Rousseau backs the idea that citizens should be for a community rather than solely being out for themselves. A person following the General Will takes the community into consideration while also implementing their own thoughts and views. “Each of us puts his person. . . under the supreme direction of the general will. ”
The sovereign, consists of every citizen. Insofar as entering into this body creates a single individual, the interests of particular individuals are outweighed by the common interest, which is the common good. Someone who is not actively following the General Will does not have much thought for the community as they do themselves. For example, in regaurds to slavery, a person not following the General Will, will be against abolishing slavery because he will only be thinking in terms of the monatary loss of income due to needing to pay the slaves and make them real employees. He is acting in his own self interest and not the people as a whole. Rousseau believes the General Will works so well for the people because there is no coercion involved. “To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man, to surrender the rights [and duties] of humanity”. For Rousseau, freedom, or liberty, is fundamental to what it is to be human. This liberty generally means freedom from external coercion. All people give up something for the greater good, it helps society progress and allows for everyone to be better off overall rather than a stagnant collection of selfish individuals making decisions only for their own gain. It appears that what is good for the community is what is good for every individual. It also seems as a sort of surrender of your private interests, and the acceptance of governing by the common good. This raises the debate on what is truly ‘supposed’ to be. If man keeps diving deeper into a civilized state, is that not what we are ultimately supposed to become? It appears the civil half or artificial state of man is what we’ve come to over time, I believe it is the more ultimate side, something that naturally comes about as we live in a society.
On the contrary, the state of nature of nature half of man is what I believe is what is intended to rule throughout the human soul. The nature half is the simplistic and unselfish version of man meaning an innocent man without the opportunity to do wrong. This is what appears to me as a sort of an enlightened human being and although we may be steered into the path of becoming a ‘citizen’, man at his core is intended to remain ‘human’.
