Essay
Introduction
The foundation for a modern discourse on inequality is Jean Jacques Rousseau's Discourse on the Origin of Inequality or more commonly known as the Second Discourse. In this work, Rousseau tried to demonstrate that civil society naturally creates inequality. He believed that the 'state of nature' was a theoretical concept that described what human beings would become without social order or society (Rousseau, 2010). Rousseau argued that there are two types of dependence-- dependence on things and dependence on men. Dependence on things, being devoid of moral elements, brings about no immoralities and does not harm liberty. On the other hand, dependence on men, being faulty, brings about all forms of immoralities (Rousseau, 2010). The shift from nature (dependence on things) to society (dependence on men) is a transformation in the attribute of dependence. This paper discusses Rousseau's solution to the problem of dependency and how he envisioned the social contract as a means of preserving people's natural freedom.
Rousseau's Social Contract
There are two forms of inequality, according to Rousseau-- physical or natural (e.g. health, gender, age) and political or moral inequality (i.e. rooted in traditions and legitimized by people's consent). Nevertheless, beyond doubt, as society grew, the physical or natural inequality resulted in political or moral inequality. Rousseau gives an explanation of how individuals shifted from a state of freedom to the modern state, largely characterized by misery, disorder, dependency, and inequality (Rousseau, 1968). Still, Rousseau believed that there were favorable outcomes to this event, such as the formation of social organizations, construction of cities, the development of technology, and the building of families. Yet, accordin to Rousseau, this also results in the 'right of the strongest' (Rousseau & Betts, 2008, 48), within which a regime of inequality wrecks human beings' natural state of freedom and happiness. People become unsociable, detached, and estranged, and the Discourse on Inequality concludes sadly in universal war.
People were not alone and deserted anymore and started to depend on one another. Those who were simply fortunate to be gifted with abilities and skills designed and produced new products. Those who own, those who labor, and those who sell depend on each other yet such dependence is uneven due to the presence of a hierarchy of talents and skills. Rousseau argues that, consequently, the skilled obtained properties and became determined and power-loving. Everyone, even the unskilled and untalented, became envious, pleasure-seekers, greedy for power, and competitive (Rousseau, 2010). Civil society changed individuals from secluded human beings with bounded, definite needs and wants into the violent, quarrelsome people described in Hobbes's state of nature.
Rousseau precisely envisioned the concept of a justifiable social contract as offering a solution to several of the major risks or problems created by dependence on other individuals. In his other work, Emile, Rousseau explained some of the remedies to the ills related to 'dependence on men' (Williams, 2014, 56): “to substitute law for man and to arm the general wills with a real strength superior to the action of every particular will.” Rousseau argued that these actions would generate a situation wherein the laws resemble the laws of nature by possessing “an inflexibility that no human force could ever conquer” (Rousseau, 2012, xl), in order that the destructive dependence on other human beings would eventually go back to dependence on things.
Rousseau promotes a new beneficial, reformatory social contract as a model whereby an appropriate society can be formed. He explained that people must reach a unified decision as regards a new social contract that gets rid of the issue of dependence on each other while allowing every individual to act upon his/her own decision and to regain the freedom s/he had enjoyed in the past (Rousseau, 1968). This can be achieved by means of complete seclusion or detachment of every member from the entire society. He suggested a complete unification wherein every person hands over his/her right to own his/her life for the sake of a legitimate participation in efforts to establish the guidelines or precepts of society. He encouraged people to give up their personal rights to a newly formed shared, collective, and moral society with a general will.
Rousseau's argument that the recognized and legitimized social contract eliminates the form of dependence that requires being ruled by unequal circumstances, as when a person is pushed to endure different kinds of injustices due to the subordinate position which s/he has with respect to others, reveals why he believes that a social contract builds moral fairness and justice between individuals. On becoming a member of the social contract, every person allows him/herself to be subjected to rules or situations that are relevant or imposed to everyone-- specifically, to the terms specified by the laws, which are generally binding.
As a consequence, none of the members of the political and legal society formed in this manner would want to make situations difficult for others, because these situations would be similarly difficult for him/her. Hence when Rousseau argued that every individual “by giving himself to all, gives himself to no one” (Rousseau, 1997, 50), it may be assumed that he believed that even though every person agrees to depend on the shared, collective society formed through the social contract and the legal rules that come out from this society, of which s/he is involved in the lawmaking process, s/he simultaneously prevents dependency on the irrational will of any specific group or individual in society. This explains the reason Rousseau believed that the membership of every person in this collective society protects him/her from all forms of individual dependence.
Rousseau's Solution to the Problem of Dependency and Kant's Autonomy
Rousseau's explanation of the solution to the problem of dependency demonstrates the recognized necessity of safeguarding individuals from themselves. As argued by Rousseau, “[T]here is no subjection so perfect as that which keeps the appearance of freedom. Thus the will itself is made captive” (Bertram, 2004, 141). Self-governance or autonomy rests in allowing oneself to be subjected to one's self-made rules. Within the perspective of the political community, this requires self-restraint. Furthermore, Rousseau argued that autonomy is not an alienating principle. It involves dealing with one's relationship to other people and with his/her membership to a collective body (Rousseau, 2010). It is thus not only an issue of individual, isolated self-law.
Similar to Rousseau, Kant perceived the ideal of autonomy with regard to submission to a self-prescribed rule.Kant was greatly influenced by Rousseau, whose philosophical thoughts brought about the culmination of the emergence of the modern idea of autonomy as freedom (Kant, 2011). Autonomy, in contrast to heteronomy, is profound self-reliance or separation from all actual connections or dependence; it supplants natural laws with self-prescribed rational laws (Kant, 2015). Kant believed that the basic core of morality is characterized by the perception of the self as independent or autonomous. Yet, Kant is less interested in protecting freedom within a collective body. He is more interested in protecting freedom against the physical world's determinist perspective.
Kant argued that people can merely have a moral obligation to behave in ways they can indeed act upon. If people's behaviors are fixed, it implies that they could have an obligation to not act upon anything but what they indeed act upon. Moreover, Kant is more interested in the value of autonomy or self-governance for moral duty or ideals (Kant, 2003) than Rousseau, who argued how self-governance can establish or strengthen the political community. Nevertheless, similar to Rousseau, Kant wrote about politics and autonomy and his arguments about moral autonomy can be associated with several of his political arguments.
Conclusions
For Rousseau, the problem of dependency must be solved because it produces inequality. Dependence on men, particularly, is detested by Rousseau because it promotes an unequal balance of power between people. Hence, he suggests a social contract wherein individual freedom will be protected and dependence will be transformed into something positive. Kant's principle of autonomy shares some similarities with Rousseau's social contract, but differs in terms of the core concern-- Rousseau is interested in social formation, whereas Kant is concerned with the protection of individual freedom in a material world dominated by determinism.
References
Bertram, C. (2004). Routledge philosophy guidebook to Rousseau and the social contract. UK: Routledge.
Kant, I. (2003). Critique of pure reason. New York: Courier Corporation.
Kant, I. (2011). Immanuel Kant: groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, I. (2013). An answer to the question: 'what is enlightenment?' UK: Penguin.
Kant, I. (2015). Kant: critique of practical reason. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rousseau, J. (1968). Politics and the arts: letter to M. D'Alembert on the theatre. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Rousseau, J. (1997). Rousseau: 'The Social Contract' and other later political writings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rousseau, J. (2010). The basic political writings. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.
Rousseau, J. (2012). The major political writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau: the two 'discourses' and the 'social contract'. UK: University of Chicago Press.
Rousseau, J. & Betts, C. (2008). Discourse on political economy and the social contract. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Williams, D. (2014). Rousseau's social contract: an introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
