- What binds those who sign the contract for a political society?
- What is Rousseau’s justification for the inevitable failure of legitimate government?
- Compare and contrast the two states of nature. Why do you think Rousseau chose to call the second state a “state of nature”?
- Is Rousseau’s description of the transformation from legitimate authority to arbitrary authority similar to what is occurring in modern day political institutions?
- Why does Rousseau insist that the original political institution was voluntary?
- What is the “blind ambition” that Rousseau mentions?
- If we seek to protect our life and liberty, why does Rousseau mention people’s instinct to submit themselves?
- How does political inequality transfer to private inequality?
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Second Half of Rousseau’s Second Part Discussion Questions and Summary
In the second half of Rousseau's second part, he discusses the origin of the political society. The three stages, the establishment of law and property, the institution of a magistrate and the transition from legitimate power to arbitrary power, show how society corrupts man. Government is considered imperfect and temporary at best, and ultimately we revert to a second corrupted state of nature.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In response to #6 and a bit of #7
ReplyDelete"Blind ambition" is a disregard for humans' natural love of freedom. It is not being able to see the benefits of freedom anymore because you have tunnel vision only now for this love of building an ego, building one's own esteem, i.e. ambition. I think it is a bit like Kant's argument that society enforces a development of talents and intellect, but it lacks the same positive output. To Rousseau, society develops this unrestrained drive amongst the individuals who, instead of focusing only on themselves, focus on the comparison of themselves to others and thus the bettering of themselves. But it is not just the growth of the individual, because personal growth is unrestrained and ambition does not stop there, it continues on to the infringement of others. No longer is man content with comparing his new self to his old self but now he must prove his dominance over other humans. It is as Rousseau puts it "looking rather below than above them" because instead of worrying about the people who are "above" and in control of their freedoms, they are too worried about seeing who the can put "below" them, "enslaving" others. It is this desire to put one's self into a position of power over others that allows them to be obedient to someone else. A man who wants freedom alone will not submit to others nor try to submit others to him, but a man who wants power over others will debase himself to allowing others to power over him in order to acquire power over others.
In response to the fourth question:
ReplyDeleteRousseau describes legitimate authority as one that is elected by the people and is present in the second stage of political society. Whereas arbitrary authority is in the third stage and consists of an ‘imperfect and unstable government’ (65). The transition between these two stages completely changes the relationship between the authoritative power and the citizens.
I feel that the description above is very similar to what has been going on all around the world in recent years; for example Mugabe in Zimbabwe or Gaddafi in Libya. I especially feel this when talking about the political situation going on in my home country of Thailand at the moment. I cannot fully say that the government was even initially elected into power legitimately, but it can now be clearly seen that the government has moved into the third stage of political society. There have been many accusations for wrongdoing and abuse of power by the Prime Minister and her government; from the failed subsidy rice scheme to acting unlawfully against peaceful protestors. It has gotten to a stage where corruption is seen throughout the government and people feel that there needs to be a change in order for the country to develop in a positive way. This is similar to Rousseau’s idea of the state of war (or the ‘corrupt’ state of nature) after civil society; where people aren’t tranquil and don’t live in harmony anymore. This corrupt state of war or new state of nature is where Rousseau begins to draw his argument to a close. Therefore, he is essentially saying that inequality will continue to be present in this state of society because there is no going back to the state of nature. Although when talking about current political situations, we always hope that there will be a way out of this chaos and state of confusion.