Family and the Idea of Slavery - Essay Example

You're 10 February 2006 Sociology: Family and the Idea of Slavery Various philosophers have approached the idea of family andslavery from multiple opposing view points to those that hold similarities as well. One of the oldest and greatest philosophers was Aristotle and his opinion on this concept was decidedly different from Rousseau's personal interpretation of it. Aristotle claimed that all people were not of equal caliber and some were meant for the confines of slavery where others were above it. (Andrews 1997). In other words, he was arguing that some were born for the specific reason of being brought into slavery while Rousseau argued against this idea1. Aristotle had no qualms with the idea of slavery and he perceived it as a natural state of being for some people, especially for those who were below the set standards of people in society. He assumed that some people were simply born to be rulers, that it as an in bred quality or trait and came from the genes where as those born into poverty would not little else than the lower statures of life and never fulfill a role that was of equal quality. Thereby was one of his main philosophical standpoints into the reasoning in behind slavery and its existence (1997). One of Aristotle's statements that were heavily debated by Rousseau himself was the one that can be found included below: For that which can foresee by the exercise of the mind is by nature intended to be lord and master and that which can with its body give effect to such foresight is a subject, and by nature a slave (1997). This details that Aristotle is indeed implying that slavery exists due to the cause of nature itself and nothing can change that. He does not agree that people are forced into slavery but rather are already a part of it by when they come into the world due to their inferior status in society. This is a wide assumption and one that was not agreed upon by all philosophers though Aristotle had his own following. Rousseau could not find the logic in this mentality and could not really fathom how someone could interpret slavery to be as readily acceptable as all men have the right to freedom regardless of their status or political positions (1997). The difference between these two philosophers is found where, Aristotle's perception is that people are simply sometimes in life circumstances that accentuate their personalities and actions as those characteristic of a slave (1997). Rousseau, on the other hand counter acts this implied belief by stating that people are not naturally slaves but what causes them to succumb to this type of mentality is by being born into slavery yet having no free will to choose one way or another how they want to be perceived (1997). Rather they are forced, by the very act of them being born, to be slaves for indefinite periods of time, sometimes to their deaths. Therefore, Rousseau's theory is that, when an individual is born into a slave type of environment, where everyone is termed slaves and un-free, with no choices for themselves, no hope for the future it seems, then their comprehension of their life switches from good to bad, from having hope to having none. When they do not have the ability to associate their own being with anything else besides the view of slavery then they begin to portray all the traits that are derivative of slave life 2 Rousseau was characteristic of many of the beliefs held by Locke and Hobbes. He focused on a state of nature in his writings and subsequently drew society together in his, 'social contract theory'3 (1997). The difference between Locke and Rousseau lies in the fact that Rousseau believed people brought reasoning into the political and even the daily factions of life. He believed without sound reasoning in behind many ideas of the people, the result would be fruitless and illogical. Locke, on the other hand did not see this as a proper concept. General will was a strong focus of this philosopher's literary teachings. He formulated the thought that people followed a hidden will to come up with solutions to specific problems in life. One thing was for certain, he theorized that due to the general will there were good consequences as well as bad that had to be acknowledged and accepted as part of the whole in society (1997). In his following idea of the, 'state of nature' some of his thoughts of family life, freedom, morals, and society are evident although they are hard to pinpoint. This was the way of philosophical thought in the 1700's. The passage from the state of nature to the civil state produces a very remarkable change in man, by substituting justice for instinct in his conduct, and giving his actions the morality they had formerly lacked. The voice of duty takes the place of physical impulses and manis forcedto consult his reason before listening to his inclinations (1997). This shows that Rousseau was markedly different from other nature theorists in that he assumed that the general will had the biggest impact in all areas of life, even in the associations of women's rights and the issue of slavery. Man had to use logical reasoning to identify why these things were the way they were and if they were ethically and morally just. It changed many peoples way of looking at things, although slavery in itself existed for many years past these philosophers and the passing of the revolution as well. The point is Rousseau changed the thought process of man kind entirely, in some philosophical ways. Consciously it might not have been wholly understood but the idea was presented into the realm of morals and correct justice. Gender and Slavery is another realm where quantifiable and opposing opinions arise. Olympe de Gouges had very similar beliefs as Rousseau did in regards to the nature of slavery and how it takes hold of specific cultures and people. However, in the way that she differed from Rousseau, for starters she was a woman who taught herself to read and write. For another she believed that a man had just as much of an obligation to a child being born into slavery as a woman did and in that idea she went from producing 'Declaration of the rights of a man' to 'Declaration of the rights of a woman' to show responsibility for both genders as well as defending the fact that rights should be an equality of all people, regardless of race4. Now if a utilization of Aristotle's belief system on slavery was compared to Olympe de Gouges, there would be even more noticeable differences encountered than with Rousseau's. In fact, Aristotle would have depicted Olympe to be of slave characteristics herself that is before she taught herself how to read and write. His thought would have lain in the fact that she was not born into a life to where education was readily accessible and it left her below the normal standards that were set out, to decipher the lower class from the higher up classes of people. This would have placed her in the category of a slave type of likelihood but due to the fact she was able to achieve greater things for herself, this moved her beyond that wave of thinking and in fact minimized Aristotle's personal interpretation of what type of people filled the characteristics associative with a slave. This just shows how Aristotle was somewhat close minded to the fact that, even if a person was of a lower stature initially, they could achieve great things in their life, surpassing the idea that they would only be in the slave classification. So instead of Olympe's personality fulfilling Aristotle's theory, it did not, in fact she obtained a high status for herself in society and achieved great things, also becoming a martyr for women's rights and in her attempts to make slavery obsolete. Although it has been stated that Rousseau and Olympe had the same sense into the idea of slavery, which is pretty much the only similarity that can be found between the two of them, there were other thoughts comparing these two as well, especially in gender recognition. The difference found between them in the area of gender and equality among men and women, is in Rousseau's interpretation of how he believed all women had their place and males were above that role. This can also be seen as a form of slavery, as many perceived women as servants of their husbands; having no real rights themselves and certainly not political say so. In this, women were not very different from those who were actual slaves and Olympe was one of the women who fought for women's rights and the rights of slaves as well. She was one who could easily relate to the feelings of those held by the confines of slavery as, being a woman she was somewhat constricted herself, but not to the same degree. Rousseau disagreed with Olmype in the idea that women did not have a place in political society (1997). By this it is meant that he felt women did deserve to have free will but that they were disqualified when it came to the areas of political thought and what should go on in the happenings of the political realm. Again this is very similar to the thought of slavery because if women were denied one right then they could not be considered totally free, but for Rousseau this is not what his interpretation was in regards to this concept. He perceived women to be beings that were more in touch with nature and their biological processes (1997). Ultimately he felt women were more worthwhile if they kept to their natural abilities which were, caring for the children, and taking care of family priorities that men otherwise would not be responsible for. His intent was not meant to demean women or make them appear as slaves to their obligatory roles but in many ways his thoughts were misconstrued and perceived to be the very opposite of what they actually were. His primary thought was actually that men and women simply reasoned differently. Where men are rational, women are not, so on that basis he declared that women served better in a divided existence, separate from male actions, especially in decisions that were politically based and had an impact on the central areas of life outside the home5. As can be obviously seen, there were a number of different ideas and view points associated with family and slavery during this time, often considered to be a time of Enlightenment. Many women felt that they themselves weren't far from being categorized as a slave themselves and often felt that they were slaves when compared to the freedoms that the male figures had. Without political rights or the right to freely go out and seek employment, women were bound to men for the essentials of life. They had a hard time functioning on their own and meeting their own necessary needs. Women who were found to be separate from this identity were often looked down upon or assumed to be something that they were not. These historic examples are totally opposite what times present today, in the current era. Slavery does not exist any longer and women can survive just fine without a male guiding them. It's truly hard to imagine being a woman and living in that time period then when society has grown accustomed to all the privileges and rights women have earned down through the decades. The same holds true for the idea of slavery, those who were bound to masters and lords worked hard to break free from this mentality and now that they have they can finally claim the rights of a free man. Though the philosophers from that era might have some relevance to certain areas of today, in a historic sense, it is safe to assume that it would be a disappointed for society at large to revert back to those philosophical attitudes and have some people subjected to slavery once more or have women placed in inferior roles compared to men. Attitudes change over time as do the philosophers and the ideas that they present society with. References 1. Roberts, Andrew (1997). Social Science History for Budding Theorists. [online] Available from: http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www.study/ssshome.htm Middlesex University. [accessed 02-09-06] 2. Roberts, Andrew (1997). The Revolution and Theories of Slavery: Rousseau on Freedom and Slavery. [online] Available from: http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/SSH4.htm#42 [accessed 02-09-06] 3. Roberts, Andrew (1997). The Revolution and Theories of Gender. [online] Available from: http://www.study/ssh4.htm#46 [accessed 02-11-06] Read More