Page 139 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Unit 8: Jean Jacques Rousseau

constituting civility and happiness. Modern civilization was highly unequal, as it did not reflect Notes
merely natural, but also artificial inequalities, and hence was corrupting and wrong. Rousseau’s
argument that acquisition of property caused inequality was implicitly challenged by Smith in his
The Wealth of Nations when he pointed out that the self-interested individual unintentionally helped
to maximize the wealth of society. In another passage in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
Smith pointed out that the self-interested individual unintentionally helped to distribute wealth
more widely so as to approach equality. Smith also observed that all occupations, if different
degrees of reward were balanced against different degrees of toil and trouble, would yield an
equal amount of welfare.
Rousseau was an advocate of approximate social equality but not total equality. He was willing to
permit two sorts of inequality. The first was the natural inequality between the young and old, the
weak and strong, the wise and stupid; the second was the inequality that resulted from rewarding
those who rendered special service to the community. Natural inequalities and those who made
distinguished contributions to society were the only types of inequalities that he permitted. He
maintained that existing social inequality did not belong to these types.
Rousseau rejected the idea that social inequalities reflected natural inequalities of talents. It was
ridiculous to think that the rich were vastly wealthier than the rest of the population, because they
were infinitely more gifted and talented. The real reason was the unscrupulous business practices
that they and their ancestors had employed. The same was the case with the powerful. He repudiated
differences in ability as the sole justification for social inequalities. Instead, he pointed out how
human beings climbed over one another to get to the top. Social equality implied equality of
opportunity. While in a capitalist society wealth was used to secure benefits, in a communist
society it was power and prestige that conferred privileges. He rejected both these principles of
distribution. He ruled out the principle of egalitarianism as a levelling one, as he did not obliterate
distinct individual endowments. He wanted society to take these into account and conform to
them (Colletti 1969: 190, 192). The basis of natural right was not human reason, but human
sensitivity. It was healthy self-interest and pity or compassion that prevented individuals from
harming one another, except in legitimate self-defence.
Rousseau saw a direct link between luxury, ever-expanding needs and the rise of art and science,
after which true courage failed and virtues declined. Roman history elucidated this argument
fully. As long as Rome was poor and simple, it was able to command respect and establish an
empire. But the moment it became wealthy, its decline began. Rousseau similarly thought Sparta
to be a better example in the cult of natural simplicity than Athens; the latter had to decline
because of its elegance, luxury, wealth, art and science. He castigated philosophers for desecrating
all that was sacred, and called them charlatans for creating confusion in the minds of men and
undermining their ideas of patriotism and religion.

8.6 Institution of Private Property

This state of affairs, a period of ideal bliss and happiness, disappeared with the emergence of
private property. In the cases of both Hobbes and Rousseau, the institution of property was absent
in the state of nature. But in spite of this similarity, there were important differences in their
writings on the emergence of civil society.
For Hobbes, the primary and original purpose of civil society was to make secure the right of self-
preservation, the right to life, whereas for Rousseau, since the human person in the state of nature
was instinctively good, life as such was not threatened, and as a consequence civil society emerged
not for its preservation, but for the protection of the property of a few. In this way civil society was
created for the selfish interests of a few people, whereas for Hobbes the need for a civil society was
more universal, since life was dear to all, and everybody without any exception would compose
the commonwealth for security.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 133