37 pages • 1 hour read
Discourse on the Origin of Inequality
A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
Understanding Human Nature
Rousseau’s stated purpose in writing the Discourse on Inequality is to establish a philosophic understanding of what human beings are by nature, stripped of every quality they have acquired as a result of society. Given that modern human societies are replete with inequalities, there are only two possible explanations. The first is that there are intrinsic differences in human beings. One can hardly deny that some are faster, stronger, and possess all manner of skills that others do not have, and so there is a strong case for a “natural or physical inequality” (101). Rousseau categorically rejects the idea that conventional inequalities, such as differences in wealth, social status, and political power, can have any basis in nature. As Rousseau’s argument progresses, he subtly shifts toward an even more radical understanding of equality. In their original condition, human beings were roughly equal even in their physical attributes as their lifestyles were nearly identical and required the same set of skills. Differences in mind, body, and skill only became conspicuous when social factors such as education, diet, and leisure time allowed some to excel while others regress.
Since all inequalities are artificial, but modern human society is thoroughly unequal, it is extremely difficult to identify what constitutes the core of human nature. Rousseau looks to animals, whom he regards as still bound by nature, who exhibit the instinct for self-preservation and a sentiment of pity, which in the case of animals is mostly a lack of cruelty. The proof for these two factors as the primary source of human nature is that human beings still exhibit them to a degree, even though social life discourages them. Only because there is a lingering flicker for self-preservation that humanity has any hope, however remote, of reclaiming the freedom it has lost in society.
Humanity’s Capacity for Reason
Reason is one of the most important and widely debated concepts in the history of philosophy. There is a consensus that reasoning is a distinctly human capacity that renders them different from all other creatures. For ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, cultivating reason was the key to achieving human excellence, and since some people have more refined capabilities than others, they accepted that relatively few people would ever achieve such excellence. The philosophers of the Enlightenment viewed reason as a more universal capability that could be used to discover the essential truths of the universe and the human condition and build institutions suitable for everyone. Rousseau belongs to this latter tradition, but he uses his reason to demolish both the ancient and modern conceptions.
According to Rousseau, reason functions solely to satisfy human appetites. There is no such thing as an objective reason that can simply see the world as it is because each person has reason mainly to acquire what they want. This is safe so long as humankind’s “desires do not exceed his physical needs” (116), as they do in Rousseau’s depiction of nature. In this case, reason is firmly tethered to the instinct for self-preservation and does not interfere with the sentiment of pity for others. When appetites grow to encompass comfort, convenience, or love, reason expands to suit those desires, people lose the ability to distinguish between what they need and what they simply want. The other main problem is that the activation of desires beyond survival puts people in more regular contact with other people and their desires. For Rousseau, people only became fully aware of themselves through the struggle for goods and honors. The development of reason in society has done nothing but multiply the sources of conflict among people and pull them further from their original state of blissful ignorance.
There is a contradiction in Rousseau the philosopher using reason to attack reason. And given the patent impossibility of returning to a condition of pure nature, it is unclear how humanity could undo all the damage it has done to itself through its reasoning. Rousseau may have been able to rediscover natural principles of equality which then outline a proper social contract, but he has no assurance that the achievement of such a state would not be promptly ruined by the exercise of reason.
The Corrupting Influence of Technology and Society
One principle of the Enlightenment was that it was within the power of human beings to improve their condition. In the conventional telling, human beings emerged from “primitive” conditions to build societies and innovate technologies that allow for longer and more fulfilling lives. Each breakthrough leads to another, leading to the present day of incredibly rapid advances in everything from medicine to communication and artificial intelligence. Rousseau looks at this long era of supposed improvement and turns it on its head, condemning it as a story of corruption that began slowly, but is rapidly picking up pace and will soon be beyond anyone’s control.
Rousseau’s pessimistic assessment is based on the assumption that human beings never had to exceed their instincts for self-preservation and pity. The natural human being was strong, fast, focused, satisfied, completely innocent, and equipped only with what they needed. Corruption began with the desire to improve upon nature, for example by building shelters that permitted a more sedentary lifestyle. Even though lives are longer, diets are more varied, and there are vaccines for many illnesses, there is also oppression, injustice, starvation, gluttony, and rampant disease, none of which could have existed in nature. Dependent on their tools and machines, people are no longer capable of surviving in the wild, even though they had to have been able to do so in their earliest generations. It thus follows that the physical constitution of human beings has weakened over time.
Even more significant than physical corruption is moral corruption. Society only exists because the rich were able to trick the poor into thinking that governments would serve the common good, and social norms serve no other purpose than to reinforce artificial inequalities. The powerful thus show off honors that they do not deserve, and, according to Rousseau, the average citizen “pays court to the great whom he hates, and to the rich whom he scorns” (179). Everyone debases themselves by playing along with rituals that are not only meaningless but actively harmful to social welfare. Every day that people participate in society accelerates the process of their corruption until they have all been reduced to a condition of equal servitude. Anticipating Marx’s argument in The Communist Manifesto (1848), Rousseau argues that this wretched condition could lay the basis for revolution. He asserts that as soon as people recognize that it is not just themselves but the overwhelming bulk of humanity who has been reduced to this sorry condition, they will see that “the despot is master only as long as he is the strongest” (177). They can wrest that strength away with relative ease if they work together.
Unlock all 37 pages of this Study GuidePlus, gain access to 8,800+ more expert-written Study Guides.
Including features:
Related Titles
By Jean-Jacques Rousseau
