Exercise of Force - Research Paper Example

How does Rousseau argue that the exercise of force (physical power) cannot provide a legitimate basis for social order? What alternative does he propose? The thoughts and ideas of Jean Jacques Rousseau, the famous French political philosopher greatly influenced the French Revolution. Rousseau, in his treatise ‘The Social Contract’ repudiates the idea that force could be a legitimate basis for a just social order. He believes that men show obedience to force as long as they are weak enough to counter it. The moment an individual grows powerful than the perpetrator of force, he disobeys it. Such compliance to coercion can neither propel a human being towards duty nor to the higher call of the morals. Might is right only till the time there doesn’t exist a force mightier than it The moment a force mightier comes along it grants legitimacy to another right that is not only different from the original right but could stand in direct contradiction to it. In this, the use of force in civil society also contradicts the cause and effect principle because every force that is more powerful than the original force creates a right that is its own. The system based on forceful obedience eventually leads to a perpetual race of increasing the might thus throwing the ideas of justice, peace, morality and duty to winds. To replace the state of affairs, where might alone is right, Rousseau proposes a system wherein all individuals submit themselves to the collective will of all the people called the “General Will.” The hypothetical concept of General Will is based on the multitude of all individual wills of individuals constituting a state, put together. Individual remains an integral and an indistinguishable of the ‘General Will’ enunciated by Rousseau. By surrendering his individual will, and natural liberty, a decision that is based on reason, than instinct, an individual gets a guarantee of liberty, rights, and the fruits of common good of the society. The general will is an agreement reached between free and equal people. To this ‘General Will’ of the people will be entrusted the sovereign (an authority created out of collective individual wills) of the state. Rousseau in his intellectual treatise goes on to conjure that man will be “forced to be free” (64). In this system reason, intellect, and logic take the upper hand while natural instincts, emotions and personal ties are relegated to the background. The sense of duty grows so strong that it supersedes the physiological needs and emotions and instincts of man. Consequently, the societies will get a changed, and a better person, intent on carrying out his societal functions with sense of duty ‘first and foremost’ in him. All individuals will think of the common good of the sovereign and the sovereign in turn, shall think and dispense common good of all. Hence, each and every individual becomes an equal co-sharer of the fruits of civilisation. Rousseau foresees such a system working for the moral and spiritual uplift of the society. What formal and pictorial means does David employ to explore the conflict between duty to the family and duty to the state in The Lictors Returning to Brutus the Bodies of his Sons? The painting ‘The Lictors Returning to Brutus the Bodies of his Sons’ emphatically brings to fore the conflict between duty to the family and duty to the state. Painted in the neo-classical style by Jacques-Louis David, it was first exhibited at the salon in 1789 at the time of French Revolution. The painting captures the grim scene, when the lectors bring to Lucius Junius Brutus, and his family, the bodies of his two sons. They had been had been executed on his orders. The sons were punished for conspiring with the exiled Emperor Tarquin, for the overthrow of the newly created republic of Rome (circa 509 B.C.). The body of Brutus is tense and his brows are knitted. His feet are crossed. David has depicted the peculiar state of mind of a man, who has chosen to forsake the love of his family in favour of duty to the Republic. The left hand shows him clutching the death warrants of his sons. The left hand side of human brain is believed to be the seat of intellect, and reason, listening to which Brutus had made the decision. The right hand is raised and beckons the lectors to bring the bodies in. The statue of Roma, the presiding deity of the Roman state stands between Brutus and Lictors, casting its shadow over Brutus. Here David has tried to depict how the will or welfare of the state has cast its long shadow over Brutus, physically and intellectually. The inner turmoil of duty and emotion waging hard in him is written large over his face. Brutus tries to put up a stoic display of obedience to state in the face of the most grievous loss. However, his countenance and his mannerism to some extent reveal his inward turmoil. The eyesight of Brutus is not fixed anywhere. Neither does he look towards his dead sons nor his grieving relations, lest the façade of resoluteness, he has erected crumble under emotion. He has to remain a living embodiment of keeping his duty before self forever. Significantly, as was the norm of the neo-classical style, David made abundant use of colours to depict this scene of a family torn apart by sense of duty to the republic and mutual love. This distinction is further highlighted by showing some parts of the painting in light and other in darkness. The dead body, the grieving mother and daughters shown in light and darkness engulfing the figure of Brutus stand out in sharp contrast to one another. The overall sentiment prevalent in the house is of acute despondency and distress. This also serves to give the message of what catastrophic ramifications rigid stance take in public can have on a family. The painting, if it shows the public face of triumph of reason over sentiment, also goes onto show what tragedy such a decision can wreak on the personal level. What areas of shared concern can you identify between Rousseau’s argument in The Social Contract and David’s Brutus? The painting made by David, to a great extent, vividly describes the ideas preached by Rousseau during the French Revolution. By signing the death warrants of his sons, Brutus has proved to be a ‘live embodiment’ of the total surrender of individual will to the General Will. Though Brutus was a powerful man in the republic, yet, by condemning his owns sons to death he showed to the public that no one is above the republic. The father has surrendered all his rights including that of the protection of his sons to the state. It is a total surrender of the self to the state. Whether Brutus has risen to that level of consciousness where the self is willing to accept the highest penalty at the altar of duty to state, has been left unanswered by David.’ Though Brutus surrendered his will to the Republic and condemned his own sons to the death, he couldn’t check the pall of gloom that descended onto his house consequent to his orders. Here the painting makes a subtle hint towards Rousseau’s ‘social chains’. They couldn’t be broken even in the face of highest of sacrifice made for a Republic in the history. This was to insinuate to the public that true ideals of Republic were not attained in ancient Rome and now (the French Revolution) was the time to complete what was left undone. Source Rousseau, J.J (1762), The Social Contract Read More