Page 153 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Unit 8: Jean Jacques Rousseau

Rousseau’s political philosophy, by implication, according to Cobban, discussed the subject Notes
matter of the politics of the twentieth century, like the reality of nationalism, state sovereignty,
the need for economic equality and the state’s role in realizing it, the bases of popular politics
and the reconciliation of these with the principles of politics based on a rational, self-
determining individual. Rousseau also pointed out the close relation-ship between liberty
and equality, and the fact that without equality, liberty would be non-existent. He abandoned
his initial hostility to property, and accepted it as an essential institution of society. Unlike
Locke, he recognized how property could become an instrument of private domination,
which was why property had to be controlled by the General Will. He considered property
as being the root cause of moral corruption and injustice. Since industrial society was not yet
an existing reality, he idealized a property-owning society where everyone would be equal
and independent. In this he retained the Lockeian spirit.
Liberty, for Rousseau, was the greatest good. Liberty was only possible when dependence
between human beings was eliminated, if not at least regulated by law. He understood
liberty as participation and popular sovereignty. It was for this reason that many see his
philosophy as being compatible with collectivism, Jacobinism, despotism and totalitarianism.
It was anti-Lockeian, for there was no effort to preserve the rights of the individual against
the state (Vaughan 1962: 48). The Social Contract sounded the death-knell of individualism,
which had held sway since the days of Locke.
Rousseau’s theory was egalitarian, anti-hierarchical, republican and democratic. Like Locke
and Montesquieu, he was critical of the nobility and benevolent despots and upheld the rule
of law. Nobody (other than Rousseau) stressed the importance of community on the grounds
that interdependence and cooperation enhanced the powers of human beings, and that
socialization enabled them to acquire consciousness and rationality. However, he was not an
unabashed supporter or admirer of modern society and civilization.
Rousseau’s solution for the ills of society was not to beckon men to the woods, nor to
advocate the destruction of all social inter-dependencies. He proposed, instead, paradox: let
us create a society which causes men to grow close to one another, to become so strongly
solidary that each member will be made dependent on the whole society and, by that very
fact, be released from personal dependencies.
There was no denying the fact that Rousseau’s political philosophy was one of the most
innovative, striking, remarkable, and brilliantly-argued theories. In the entire history of
social and political ideas, there were only a few parallels to his edifice in its force of argument
and passion for outlining a structure which was supposed to put an end to, most, if not all,
human predicaments.
His most spectacular achievement was that he understood the pivotal problem that faced
individuals in society—how to reconcile individual interests with those of the larger interests
of society. He tried to resolve this delicate problem in his own way, by depicting human
nature in operation under the sway of an all-comprehensive political structure. The attempt
by itself was highly laudable, as this was the most important problem that a political theorist
faced, and in most cases the resolution was far from satisfactory.
Rousseau’s influence has changed over the last three centuries. In the eighteenth century, he
was seen as a critic of the status quo, challenging the concept of progress, the core of the
Enlightenment belief-structure. In the nineteenth century, he was seen as the apostle of the
French Revolution and the founder of the Romantic Movement. In the twentieth century, he
has been hailed as the founder of the democratic tradition, while at the same time assailed
for being the philosophical inspiration of totalitarianism. These indicate that it has not been
possible to interpret Rousseau within a single framework of analysis.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 147