In France in the 1950’s as an entry to an academy essay
competition, Rousseau wrote his discourse on inequality in answer to the theme
question: “What is the origin of inequality among men, and is it authorized by
natural law?” Surprisingly, Rousseau did not win the essay competition, but he
did win the attention of almost every major philosopher of the 18th
century (your essay would have to be pretty influential to be called throughout modern history “The
Discourse”).
Rousseau’s essay is just that, an essay. It’s not really a
typical revolutionary writing at all, but it is included with other writings by
revolutionaries because it set the groundwork for those future writers.
Revolutions almost always try to resolve the issue of inequality in society,
and in this essay Rousseau tries to get to the root of the issue, and on the
way challenges every major assumption of society, government, and politics. In answering the question of whether
inequality among men is authorized by natural law, he asks the question (and outlines the historical debate) of what
is nature, and what is law; what is the nature of man, or man in the natural
state?
As I said, The Discourse is not of the typical revolutionary
genre. It was not written for the general public, but was written for scholars.
This is evident in the style of writing. It is not elevated or written in a
grand style. It does not appeal as much to pathos and ethos as it does to
logos. In the end he does not call for a specific change, or really change at
all, rather he argues that change is possible. He argues that the way society
got to where it is now did not have to be, and therefore society does not have
to be the way it is now. He does not exactly define a better way, but rather
lays the foundation of thought that leads to the logical conclusion that a
better way could exist. In this way he provided the parchment on which future
revolutionaries could design their new societies.
 |
| Isn't he such a pleasant-looking man? |
He does look very pleasant in that painting... That aside his ideas were defiantly an important influence in future revolutionary writings. I think that a lot of the points that he asserts are assumed as true in much of the rhetoric of the discussion in the French revolution and they justified much of the class warfare which occurred then and later in history.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that you said this isn't really a revolutionary writing, but it is the groundwork for future revolutionary writers. In some ways that gives my article and a lot of our articles an extra context.
ReplyDelete