Rousseau's The Discourse Of Inequality

99). Rousseau viewed property as a right “which is different from the right deducible from the law of nature” (Rousseau, p. 94). Consequently, “the establishment of one community made that of all the rest necessary…societies soon multiplied and spread over the face of the earth” (Rousseau, p. 99). Many political societies were developed in order for the rich to preserve their property and resources. Rousseau argues that these societies “owe their origin to the differing degrees of inequality which existed between individuals at the time of their institution,” (Rousseau, p. 108). Overall, the progress of inequality could be constructed into three phases. First, “the establishment of laws and of the right of property” (Rousseau, p. 109) developed stratification between the rich and poor. Then, “the institution of magistracy” and subsequently “the conversion of legitimate into arbitrary power” (Rousseau, p. 109) created a dichotomy between the week and powerful, which ultimately begot the power struggle between slave and master. According to Rousseau, “there are two kinds of inequality among the human species…natural or physical, because it is established by nature…and another, which may be called moral or political inequality, because it… is established…by the consent of men,” (Rousseau, p. 49).

Rousseau is theorizing from the concept of the general will, which promotes individuals to become conscious citizens who actively participate as a community to form policies for a governing structure. The general will advocates for a commitment to generality, a common interest that will unite all citizens for the benefit of all. Rousseau states, “each one of us puts into the community his person and all his powers under the supreme direction of the general will; and as a body, we incorporate every member as an indivisible part of the whole” (Rousseau 61). The general will is an expression of the law that is superior to an individual’s

“This fame study of original man, of his real wants, and of the fundamental principle of his duties, is likewise the only good method we can take, to surmount an infinite number of difficulties concerning the Origins of Inequality, the true foundations of political bodies, the reciprocal rights of their members, and a thousand other familiar questions that are as important as they are ill understood.” (Rousseau, Preface lviii)

With this, all peoples are equal and completely free or, to put it more eloquently, “in giving himself to all, each person gives himself to no one” (Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Basic Political Writings. Hackett Pub. Co., 1987. p. 148). In this respect, Marx and Rousseau share common ground. They both believe that a community or state ruled by all needs to exist to ensure freedom for all. Marx and Rousseau agree that control that comes from above/without/utilizing force can never be rendered legitimate. Likewise to Rousseau, the core of Marx’s notion of freedom is epitomized in this phrase: “Liberty is, therefore, the right to do everything which does not harm others” (C., Tucker, Robert, and Engels, Friedrich. The Marx-Engels Reader, First Edition. New York: W. W. Norton, 1972. p. 40). The break between the two is most noticeable concerning Marx’s central idea that the procurement of the rights of production is the key to freedom. When human beings are estranged from their labor they are estranged from themselves, from each other, and, ultimately, made subjects because of it. Freedom necessarily means that human beings must have the right to produce freely as production is a natural extension of oneself. As we shall see, this problem is only exacerbated by civil society.

Many scholarly articles have found and appreciated that Jean Jacques Rousseau philosophies are present in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Rousseau’s essay Discourse on Inequality and Origin of Languages can be directly correlated with the development of the creature in Frankenstein. While it is clear that Rousseau’s philosophies follow the transformation of the creature I sparked more of an interest in the philosophies of John Locke and connecting his philosophies with the transformation of the creature. John Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding is also clear and is under appreciated in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.

Within Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men, he creates an argument against the suggestion that moral inequality is naturally found in nature, moral being in terms of law and social order, by claiming that presocial individuals were happier, equal, and naturally good in contrast to civil or societal humans. A central aspect of their happiness relies on the presocial human’s lack of unnecessary desires. Although Rousseau’s theory can in large ways be applied and seen in today’s society, it does not acknowledge the positive and crucial things provided by society that can engender happiness and do not exist in the environment of natural humans.

Inequality is the result of the formation of a society. In the treatise, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Rousseau analyzes the important factors that develop inequality through human nature’s natural instincts in a society. A society is a group of individuals who leave the state of nature to achieve a common goal under the rule of a higher power. In this case, society’s common goal is to protect themselves from their primitive state of nature. Throughout society’s creation, self-preservation, natural talents, and jealousy become an important influence on the development of inequality.

Inequality is something that is created the second an organism is born, be they human, animal or otherwise. This is in agreement with Rousseau’s main theory in his Essay “Discourse On Inequality” He states that one of these inequalities is “natural or physical” (45) and I would completely agree with his distinction and believe that these advantages allow some to perform in life better than others and thus create inequality between individuals. However, Rousseau’s other form of inequality which he claims is “moral or political inequality” does not exist on its own, it is an extension of natural inequality. This is because of the basic principle that the strong have the ability to prey on the weak. In short there is only one form of inequality and it is driven by natural occurrences in people and all other inequality springs from these abilities.

Rousseau outlines the progression that societies followed out of the state of nature, and he establishes the impending inequality that complemented this progress. Inequality emerges in the successful developments of man’s

At some point they cannot survive by themselves and everyone needs to come together for the common good In giving everything to the community the individual receives everything he or she has lost plus "more power to preserve what he has" (189). Lives must be lived in and for the group; the life as an individual must be merged into the life of the state, and the people must be involved in all aspects of government. There can be no clubs, separate churches, power groups, or political parties, because these would create separate rights for individuals, and give some individuals more power than others. By creating this, Rousseau annihilates power struggles between the rights of a group and individual rights. In this system, there is no one ruler of the community. A citizen who puts his or her community first is ruler, and ruled. The political government is one united system, it does what the community wants it to do.

Another philosopher by the name of Aristotle argued that some people are "by their nature" naturally inferior to others and that huge political and civil inequalities are justified by these physical superiorities. Rousseau opposed the idea that of the naturally stronger people enslaving the inferior ones is out of purely physical inequalities. Since moral inequality is based on the views of society not individual differences, he explanations that it should not have any physical explanation, just a moral one. This evaluation on society is still relevant today. People simply worry about their perception and standing in society because they are told they have to.

To better understand Rousseau’s thesis and social contract he proposed, we must first understand why Rousseau felt compelled to write and his main criticism of society during the 18th century. In sum, Rousseau argued that states (specifically France, though never explicitly stated) have not protected man’s right to freedom or equality. Rousseau began The Social Contract in dramatic fashion. He wrote, “man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains” (1). This quote is still used today, and is a powerful description of Rousseau’s central issue with society. He believed that every man is “born” naturally free—he has full autonomy and can do what he chooses. However, Rousseau argued that man is bound to the injustices of society.

Over the course of history this idea of freedom has been developed and defined by many famous political and philosophical thinkers. Many of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s ideas are acknowledged in the “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” and more notably the “The Social Contract”. John Stuart Mill’s major points originate from a book called “On Liberty”. All of these works are still read today and taught in schools around the world. In particular, their ideas on freedom and liberty have drawn a considerable amount of attention. For instance, Rousseau is well known for his idea of “forcing citizens to be free”, while Mill claims that freedom can be found in “pursing our own good in our own way”. Therefore, it is evident that fundamental differences occur between Rousseau’s and Mill’s ideas on liberty and freedom. Rousseau’s rejects this classical liberal idea of freedom of the individual, and instead argues that the highest quality of freedom is achieved through a social contract where collective decisions represent the law and people have a duty to the state, while Mill sees freedom as not being constrained by the government (freedom from laws) and pursuing one’s own good as long as it does no harm to others.

The purpose which Rousseau ostensibly gives his social contract is to free man from the illegitimate chains to which existing governments have shackled him. If this is his aim, then it follows that he should be most concerned with the preservation of freedom in political society, initially so that savage man might be lured out of nature and into society in the first place, and afterwards so that Rousseau’s framework for this society will prevent the present tyranny from reasserting itself. Indeed, in his definition of purpose for man’s initial union into society, he claims that, despite his membership in an association to which he must necessarily have some sort of obligation if the

Communities can be found everywhere and can be created anywhere. You may be unaware of it, but you are part of a community not only based on your location, but also based on your lifestyle, your religion, your heritage, your education, or your abilities. As Hewitt once said, “Community provides a psychological world and a place of identification for its members.” Identifying yourself with a particular community may be easier than it