Rousseau's Ideas of Natural Equality and Conventional Equality - Literature review Example

Rousseaus Ideas of "Natural Equality" and "Conventional Equality" Jean-Jacques Rousseau is one of the most significant philosophers known as a forerunner of democratic citizenship based on the different studies that he had undertaken in relation to the topic. There are different fundamental thoughts that he shared specifically in the study of the natural equality and the social contract. The two concepts are the main issues in the study undertaken on the basis of the principles expressed by Rousseau in his writings. In the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality he “conceived … two kinds of inequality among the human species: one… [is] natural or physical … [which] is established by nature, and consists difference of age, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind or of the soul and … the moral or political inequality [which] depends on a kind of convention … and at least authorized by the consent of men” (Rousseau “Discourse…” 15). The discussion of the meaning of the two types of inequality is related to the main issues of the paper. The human condition reflects inequality because civil society on the basis of norms and laws opposes “natural equality” and the concept of the natural man. This can be considered as a radical point of view presented by Rousseau since he expressed that political inequality in the conventional society “consists of different privileges which some men enjoy to prejudice others” (Rousseau “Discourse…” 15). To support the perspective, he defined the foundation concepts of “natural equality” and the norms of civil society. After the recognition of the root of the inequality, he advocated the social contract to be able to achieve “conventional equality.” Exploration of “Natural Equality” In his discourse, Rousseau viewed natural equality as the unblemished form of a “natural man” or a man in the state of nature where equality can be achieved since the affective factors occur mainly in the natural environment, either in the physical or in the moral attributes. In nature, man has his strength and needs. He has his instincts and characters. The complex interactions of his physical and moral facets seek the state of stability. With the factors limited to those related to the natural man and the natural environment, a man then can be considered as a complete unit of organism by himself. Rousseau presented a natural man in solidarity with neither a family nor property. This basically means that man is driven by his own view (Rousseau “Discourse…” 17-22). Rousseau expressed that “the body of a savage man being the only instrument he understands, he uses it for various purposes” (Rousseau “Discourse…” 18). Based on his discourse then, the said characteristics of man create equal opportunity to access what he needs, thus, the precept “natural equality.” To visualize his point of view can be a challenge since the present era is governed by complex forces in the society and the natural man is difficult to access. But Rousseau pointed out the two principles that can explain the natural equality in the nature of man which are self preservation and pity or compassion. Self-preservation is related to the value given to oneself and compassion is the capability to empathize. He defined self-preservation as man’s “chief and almost sole concern [and harness]…those faculties …concerned with attack or defense (Rousseau “Discourse…” 22). On the other hand compassion is defined as “a disposition suitable to creatures so weak and subject to so many evil … [which is] so natural that the very brutes …sometimes gives evident proofs of it” (Rousseau “Discourse…” 33). These two innate components of a natural man, according to him, are responsible for the good character which he believed as inherent. Thus, the natural man is viewed by Rousseau to have a naturally good nature. In effect, equality also occurs naturally in man’s character, and the interactions are just effects of such existence. In the recognition of the ideas related to “natural equality” it can be considered fundamental that man looks back to his good nature to be able to be well rooted in the complicated decision making process involved in the daily life. This is one if the main importance of the view of Rousseau. In addition, his stress on the importance of purity as opposed to Hobbes point of view regarding a society-based behavior is rooted on fear and negative forces. The emphasis given on the mental qualities such as freedom and aim for perfection is another importance of Rousseau’s point of view. Based on his principles then, man is a positive and good being acting upon his innate nature and good morality (Rousseau “Discourse…” 33). But there is an immense question as to why inequality became one of the most affective forces of the modern era. On the basis of Rousseau’s teachings then natural man is a complete being by himself and acting upon his instincts. Civil society is the main constant that distanced the natural man from his true nature. The human condition reflects inequality because civil society on the basis of norms and laws opposes “natural equality” and the concept of the natural man. This is a result of the continuously increasing complexity in the norms and ways of life that necessitate structure in the manner by which a man acquires needs and lives life. In the absence of structure in the society, conflicts can occur. On a general view then, the inequality in the modern world upon application of Rousseau’s view is brought about by the continuous deviation of the man from his natural way of existence which then ultimately results to inequality. Exploration of “Conventional Equality” Due to the need for order in the social aspect of man’s existence, the social contract had been recognized. Even Rousseau pointed out that although the natural man is the main point of view in nature, the alterations in the natural environment can be translated to changes in the existence of man. In the conventional society, the existence of the social contract is a means of achieving equality. Rousseau defined social contract as the “entry into civil society… [and] a total alienation as a form of exchange [of natural rights but] an advantageous one” and “the rights they alienate are rights based on might; the rights they acquire are rights based on law” (Rousseau “The Social Contract” 33). At some point in history, the establishment of society became a necessity and the natural freedom of man became translated into conventional freedom which is of entirely different context. The said view still confirms the thesis that the civil society reflects norms that are opposite the natural form of freedom. According to Rousseau, the man has to face issues of war, slavery (either political or social) and the quest for equality in the conventional society (Rousseau “The Social Contract” 33-41). The main problem is the fact that to be able to achieve freedom in the conventional society, man has to follow norms and laws. According to him, though “man is born free, everywhere he is in chains” (Rousseau “The Social Contract” 49) which means that freedom is innate but being born in the conventional society ties man into rules that govern him through his existence. This is to achieve the freedom in the context of conventional society. The social contract is aimed to improve human situation by decreasing conflicts and preventing slavery. This is undertaken by establishing and assigning a social structure with a leader of sovereign power. Every action in the said society is based on the internal definition of freedom (Rousseau “The Social Contract” 74). The presentation and definition of the social contract in the conventional society is significantly persuasive. Although this is the case, one of the questions that can arise is the fact that conventional freedom is the most accessible kind since natural freedom cannot be achieved in the present state of the human existence. A question if man can settle for conventional freedom since natural freedom can be compared to an abstract thought is the main concern. In response to the query, Rousseau explored social contract to be able to present a choice since the achievement of natural freedom and equality is improbable. Man with his advanced faculty of intellect and moral principles can adapt quickly to changes. As a philosopher, though in danger of contradicting his view on natural man by exploring the social contract, Rousseau presented the guidelines to be able to adapt and to guide the people into achieving the next best thing to natural equality that is through social contract. Thus, the social contract then can be recognized for its objective to give the people or the members of the society access to equality. For that matter, Rousseau had been recognized to be one of the most important forerunners of the democratic thought wherein social contract and laws are applied and incorporated. Conclusion Based on the study on Rousseau’s discourse on inequality and the social contract, the main thesis had been reinforced that human condition in the present era reflects inequality because civil society on the basis of norms and laws opposes “natural equality” and the concept of the natural man. In general, the perspective of Rousseau implied that freedom that can be achieved in the natural state of man although distant and unachievable in the modern time is the best form. Upon such realization, he searched for the next best form of freedom and he found conventional equality which occurs in the civil society. This can be achieved by social contract. Thus, in the present society, natural equality had been replaced by the conventional equality which is aimed to lessen inequality in man’s existence in the social environment. Works Cited: Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. Kessinger Publishing, 2004. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques and Maurice Cranston. The Social Contract. Penguin Classics, 1968. Read More