Discourse on the Origin of Inequality

“Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men,” often known as the “Discourse on Inequality” or the “Second Discourse,” is an essay by the Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau published in 1765. This summary is based on The First and Second Discourses, edited and translated by Roger D. Masters and Judith R. Masters, and published by St. Martin’s Press in 1964.

Summary

Rousseau wrote the essay in response to a prize announced by the Academy of Dijon for the best answer to the prompt: “What is the origin of equality among men; and is it authorized by natural law?” Rousseau proposes to distinguish the inherent features of humanity from extrinsic factors such as nationality, class, and education level. He acknowledges that it is impossible to discover the original condition of human beings from any kind of historical or anthropological analysis, and so he undertakes a philosophic inquiry: to imagine what human life would be like with nothing other than the impulses people receive from nature.

The question of human nature was extremely important during the Enlightenment, the historical period of which Rousseau was a part. It was an age of scientific progress and political upheaval. Identifying the essential and permanent features of humanity would make it possible to discard outmoded traditions and design institutions that promote human well-being. Philosophers of the time such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke argue that impulses like greed and vanity lead people into conflict. They see political society as a means to mitigate the perils posed by human nature. Rousseau takes the opposite position that humans are kind and harmless until institutions (including political institutions) corrupt them. The “Discourse on Inequality” justifies a more radically democratic form of politics whereby people reclaim the equality that is rightfully theirs.

Rousseau’s depiction of the state of nature begins with the assumption that human beings possess two built-in principles of action that exist, he says, “anterior to reason” (95). The first is the desire for self-preservation, and the second is the tendency to feel pity toward other “sensitive beings” when they are in pain or need aid (96). Rousseau proceeds to imagine a world before social or technological advancement, where humans have only the strength of their body, the will to survive, and the capacity to feel pity for the suffering of others. To survive, humans would need a certain level of physical endurance as well as skills in procuring food, defending against inclement weather, and evading predators. Rousseau imagines that they will be resilient, self-sufficient, and able to procure what they need to survive. He argues that, far from being miserable due to their primitive condition, they would be perfectly satisfied because they have no unfulfilled desires. He argues people in the advanced culture of the 18th century are less satisfied than “primitive” people because people in his supposedly advanced culture have complicated, unfulfillable desires that render them unhappy. Natural humans would be free and equal in every important respect—some might be stronger or faster, but such advantages would be of no benefit in the context of such a simple lifestyle. They would also be independent. Rousseau denies that humans have strong social instincts. As each person’s needs are satisfied, they spend very little time in groups.

Rousseau imagines, however, that at some point in human history, the population would expand to less hospitable climates where cooperation is necessary for survival. In this new condition, people become conscious of themselves relative to others, generating new emotions like vanity and shame. Vanity, in turn, leads to economic inequality as people amass superfluidities to feel superior to others. The struggle for wealth and power eventually introduces the need for a government. Rousseau sees government primarily as a ruse by the rich to make their rule over the poor more durable and legitimate. With time, the majority no longer recognizes the extent of its oppression by elites.

Rousseau’s tone is pessimistic throughout; he begins and ends the essay with the observation that humanity’s condition has steadily worsened and this trend is likely to continue. However, by proving that human beings are free and equal by nature if not by convention (that they have lost that freedom and political society exerts no legitimate authority over them), he hopes to rekindle people’s original vitality. If political society is unjust, then revolution is justified.