Customer Reviews

Rousseau's Political Writings: Discourse on Inequality, Discourse on Political Economy, On Social Contract (Norton Critical Editions)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Although this edition contains some excellent background materials, the translation is less than professional and sins by omission. Some important parts of the texts are inexplicably left out, such as Rousseau's dedication of the "Discourse on the Origin of Inequality" to Geneva, in which he clearly and passionately explains some of his basic theories of government, through a utopian fantasy about his hometown. Not only does the dedication give an important political context to the "Discourse," it also adds a touching and pathetic autobiographical dimension to the text. As such, it is an essential part of the "Discourse." Also omitted are many of Rousseau's own notes on the text, which are both amusing and illuminating. Finally, the translation itself leaves out certain phrases, seriously distorting the meaning of key passages. The above comments only apply to the "Discourse on the Origins of Inequality," but if they are any indication of the general carelessness of the translator and/or the editors, readers would be better off with another edition, for example Donald Cress's translation of the "Basic Political Writings," published by Hackett ...

I agree that the translation is inadequate, sometimes to the point of misconstruing Rousseau's intent. The omission of the majority of Rousseau's footnotes in the Second Discourse is a poor choice, and the editors' own notes are rarely illuminating. The additional material, however, is appreciated.

This book collects the three most important political writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Discourse on Inequality, Discourse on Political Economy, and On Social Contract. Rousseau is one of the most original and influential philosophers, having a profound effect on everyone and everything from the French Revolution - and, depending on whom you ask, the American - to Marx to Tolstoy. His range was literally encyclopedic, but he is probably best remembered for political writings. Anyone looking to get a good overview of these will do well to start here, as this basically has all of his strictly political work, but anyone wanting a wider overview must look elsewhere.

Discourse on Inequality is one of the most shockingly original writings in the history of thought - so original Samuel Johnson famously argued Rousseau could not have been serious, and many, including admirers, have agreed. Its argument that people are born free and pure only to be corrupted by society flies in the proverbial face not only of philosophy but of civilization itself. It was all the more shocking during the Enlightenment, when society, not least via Rousseau's many fellow philosophers, was more self-congratulatory than ever. His depiction of our fall from grace is spellbinding and hard to put down; those who think philosophy is dry and boring will truly be surprised.

Discourse on Political Economy essentially takes the next step of asking how we can legitimize and improve such a corrupt society. It does not have easy answers but does reject the seemingly obvious one that we return to a primitive state; Rousseau has often been charged with this, but he actually explicitly denies it. This Discourse is far less original but has several salient points and is well-written. It is an important contribution to the question that has dominated Western thought since at least Plato and essential reading for anyone with even the slightest interest in it.

On Social Contract is now considered Rousseau's most important work, and it is easy to see why. He of course did not invent the social contract; Thomas Hobbes' 1651 Leviathan is generally considered its foundation, but elements are visible at least as far back as Plato. It had dominated Western political thought since Hobbes, though, and Rousseau's contribution is one of the most important. He looks at the question more thoroughly and systematically than anyone since Hobbes and, though he admired the latter, comes to almost the opposite conclusion. His arguments for a social contract are strong - nay, near-undeniable - but, more importantly and unlike many, he actually goes into how to implement one in considerable detail. The work is again remarkable for being very well-written. As it is significantly longer than the Discourses, the quality is not as uniform; several chapters, especially those on the Roman republic, are more or less tangential, and there are other weak spots. That said, the vast majority is extremely engaging and generally lucid. One can come away from On Social Contract with an almost spiritually intense belief in its central tenets, and many have; Poland and Corsica both asked Rousseau to propose a constitution, and the French Revolution may well not have happened without him. The book was enormously influential throughout the twentieth century and continues to be. Unfortunately, though, the vaguest parts are precisely those that are the most specific about how Rousseau's social contract can be actualized. His infamous claim that we must be "forced to be free" has long been controversial, as have related statements about the General Will's infallibility, absolute sovereignty, anti-monarchialism, and religion. They are near-paradoxical at times and open to a wide interpretation variety. This is how Rousseau has been able to influence people at opposite ends of the political spectrum. He has been credited or blamed - depending on point of view - for everything from the French Revolution to Hitler and Stalin. His philosophical ties to these last have been near-definitively refuted in recent decades, but the book is such we can see how such misconceptions arose. Near-insurmountable pessimism about his own ideals, including his famous statement that only gods would be fit for a democracy, has also frustrated even his strongest admirers. As with all important controversial books, the key is to form one's own conclusions. Few seminal works have greater potential for viable individual interpretation and general applicability.

This gets to the crux of reading Rousseau; he probably invokes the greatest reaction disparity of all philosophers. One almost literally either loves or hates him. Many have idolized and based their whole lives and philosophies on him; at least as many have done the opposite. Those who value originality and writing qualities like general lucidity and conciseness will likely love Rousseau, as he here excels nearly all philosophers and even many literary writers. However, empiricists and others who value truth and facts above all, as well as those who are eminently practical, may well loathe him. Discourse on Inequality's infamous statement that it will ignore facts because they have no bearing on the issue has appalled many ever since publication. Even so, Rousseau's importance and influence are such that anyone seriously interested in philosophy or political thought must read him. Not everyone will agree, but he has been at least as valuable to dissenters as to advocates, however differently.

As for this particular edition, it follows the pattern of other Norton Critical Editions. Besides the three texts there is a biographical sketch; excerpts from Rousseau's groundbreaking autobiography Confessions; more or less contemporary reactions by luminaries like Voltaire, Hume, Johnson and Boswell, Paine, John Adams, Casanova, and Tolstoy; a series of critical articles; and a short bibliography. The contemporary reactions are fascinating. It is always interesting to see what one intellectual giant thinks of another, but these are especially compelling, not least because of almost universal negativity. We should not forget the incredible hostility Rousseau incurred, not least from fellow philosophers, despite fame and popularity. The biographical sketch is useful, and the Confessions excerpts are interesting and make one want to read the whole, though several are not directly related to the texts included; surely more relevant passages could be found. The value of the articles is far more debatable. They are well-written and interesting, but the editors' decision to focus on Rousseau's democratic aspect arguably limits their value. It is an important topic, but anyone more interested in other areas will find them of little to no use. A wider focus may have been better. The editors justify it by saying the Cold War's thawing means it is time for this focus, which reminds us the book was published in 1988. This may be the main problem; the articles, which date from throughout the twentieth century, are no longer current. Those wanting an overview of current thought will need a newer edition. More importantly, the last two articles are very indirectly concerned with Rousseau, only mentioning him briefly at the start. Some may value them as practical applications of his ideas to the (more or less) present day, but many will simply be annoyed. Finally, with one slight exception, the articles view Rousseau very positively. It would have been good to have more balance, though one could argue they offset the mostly negative contemporary reactions. The fact that this book is over twenty years old also makes the already too short bibliography all but useless.

Of course, those who want only to read Rousseau will not care about all this. Such people should seek another collection. Rousseau's writings here take up only about two hundred pages; one can easily find something more comprehensive, even in regard to political writings. This book's relative thinness is another arguable strike. More Rousseau could have been included; Discourse on the Arts and Sciences would have been nice, especially as it is mentioned repeatedly and is the starting point for Discourse on Inequality. One could say it is only tangentially political, but two of the essays are only tangentially about Rousseau, and surely actual Rousseau would be more valuable.

In sum, those wanting an essential overview of Rousseau's political writings will be interested in this, especially if they want some context and commentary. Anyone wanting more recent scholarship or a wider selection should look elsewhere.

I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Jean Jacques Rousseau born (1712-1778), in Geneva mother dies in childbirth, he was an engravers apprentice. Stayed out too late one night and locked out of the city, knew he would get in trouble for it so he takes off for France, and meets Madame De Warrens becomes his lover and she converts him to Roman Catholicism. He had a lifelong mistress had 5 kids which he left with an orphanage, which is amazing considering he wrote the book "Emile," which was a guide to raising and educating young children. He neglected the opportunity to put theory into practice. To begin at the beginning, famous lines of book "The Social Contract," "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."

The question he asks, how do we find a way to get people to live together in groups? To live together in society and yet still make it true that each person only obeys himself that leaves us as free as when we were in the state of nature. He thinks he has the answer, he thinks he can legitimate, a kind of society, where people have this much freedom. There are certain things that he thinks are necessary for this, first, it has to be a society with general laws. It can't be that whoever is in charge of the government gets to do whatever they feel like doing. There has to of been laws made that authorize this. Second, there has to be universal consent to the laws, everybody has to accept the laws. Now this may be a little unclear, because there is a point that Rousseau talks about majority rule. It does make sense though there is a sense that he believes that the people have to consent to all of the laws, it has to be unanimous, it is just going to take a little while to get to that point. We will see how he reconciles these ideas. Third, there has to be unlimited Sovereignty, people have no rights against the laws you can't say the laws are illegitimate because they violate your rights the way that Locke would say for example people completely give up their rights to the collective. Therefore, there is no worry that a law might trespass on somebody's rights. For Rousseau, be sure to understand that this idea of sovereignty means the power to make laws. Therefore, it is a little bit different say than what you got out of Hobbes were he talks about the sovereign's power. For Hobbes, sovereign power is the power to say what goes. There is no real distinction between what we would call legislative power and executive power. You know the power to make the law and the power to enforce the laws. For Rousseau, sovereignty means the power to make the laws. Therefore, that's the power that is unlimited. Everything the state does has to be done in accordance to the laws. However, there is no limit on what the laws can be. At least no limits coming from the idea of violating individual rights. The only limit on the power of the state is the laws. There is this kind of notion that periodically there would be an assembly of people to come together to decide on the laws and make new ones. The power like a monarchy or oligarchy has power to enforce the laws and they do what ever the assembly tells them to do. The general laws are there and then the executive power is in charge of applying those general laws to specific cases. However, all they can do is apply those general laws. They cannot freelance and do stuff on there own.

Rousseau really praised Sparta as a model democracy. So, here's the kind of society that Rousseau thinks that makes it possible for us to enjoy freedom and social life. We give up all power to the state; we claim no individual rights to ourselves against the government. We give up complete power to the state we do not think we have any individual rights that can limit what the state can do but we insist that the state only act in accordance with general laws and these be laws everybody consents and agrees to. Now you ask, how in the world can we have unanimous consent to the law? With any size or group, how do you get unanimous consent? Rousseau's answer is that in a proper society, one where everyone has been brought up properly and so on, they think of them selves as a community there will be two different choices that people can make about the laws that they want. Two different standpoints, for which they will choose what the laws should be. 1. Their individual wills, which will be a choice about what is best for each persons point of view, 2. However, each citizen will also possess a "General Will." There will as a citizen. The general will of every citizen will be the same. Their general will, will from each of them will be in favor of the laws that will be best for the community. Even if it is not best for them as an individual, sometimes it will be. Just like Kant thinks that everybody's Numinal self is in favor of the same law, Rousseau thinks that in a proper political community every bodies general will is in favor of the same laws each citizens general will, will be the same. Even if from your own perspective, you do not like some of the laws that are passed, if in fact they are laws that are best for the community, you will consent to them from the standpoint of your general will. Therefore, everybody does consent to whatever laws there are that are best for the community. Now ideally, people will think of themselves as citizens first and individuals second that they will have no hesitation in obeying the laws that the general will is in favor of, but people being what they are sometimes people will not obey the laws even when their general will has consented to the laws. Rousseau says people will be acting in accordance with their general will as a citizen rather than their private or individual will. That if one should be tempted or inclined to act on the basis of their individual will in a way that is contrary to their and everybody else's general will, then they ought to be forced to obey the general will and the laws it endorses. Not just be forced to obey, but in being forced to obey you are actually being made more free than you would be if you did in a sense what you think you want to do. You can call this Rousseau's "paradigm of positive freedom."

Rousseau does not think that any group of people can form this kind of society. Before a society can form a government under this kind of basis, it will already be a society that exists under illegitimate rule. Therefore, even though Rousseau talks about the state of nature the way Hobbes and Locke does, he does not really have the expectation that groups of people are going to go from the state of nature straight into a legitimate society. They are going to start out with some kind of illegitimate rule, and that is going to give them enough cohesion, this kind of shared experience they have had, that then they are going to be able to form a legitimate government. They are going to be similar enough in outlook and have enough of a bond to the society, that they have the general will. This can only happen in a relatively small community. They must have shared values and experience. He thought that the only place in his time in Europe that could do this was the island state of Corsica. Once the laws are already in place you are agreeing to them, it is tacit consent. He believes that when the society is first formed legitimately, people have to give expressed consent.

There is not some kind of disconnect that you would get in say some kind of fascist political philosophy like what is good for the community and what is good for the people. There is almost no connection between those things. Somehow for Rousseau there seems to be some kind of connection that what's good for the community is some kind of function of what is good for the individual people in the community. But, the nature of that function to me is just opaque, he doesn't get whatever he is trying to say across there.

In practice obviously this is hard to do. Because Rousseau is hostile to the idea that you could have just a select group of people to make the laws, this means he has to be against representative democracy. The only societies that are this democratic that have worked are societies that have had slaves (Greek and Roman). Because how much time does citizenship take without representatives, we have to be in assembly all the time so you need slaves to cook and raise crops. So, you should have this picture in mind that every so often the citizens get together to develop laws, what they should be doing of course is trying to vote in a way that the general will tells them to vote, whatever is best for the community. Rousseau is not so naïve to think that they are all going to unanimously and spontaneously put their hands up at the same time. People are going to disagree, abut what the law is. Majority rule he says in that case. However, it is not the majority rule in the spirit that we think of it, where the side with the most votes wins and the losers are disappointed because their way didn't prevail. No, what Rousseau says is the minority should look at this as they were wrong about what the general will was in that case, and so they should be happy that what they wanted didn't get adopted because that would have been a mistake. The majority essentially knows best. It is as if they are all trying to get to the same place, some will get there some will be misled and they should be grateful to be straightened out. One can see how totalitarian's can embrace some of Rousseau's writings.

Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, history and, psychology.