JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU: ABOVE ALL ELSE AN APOSTLE OF DEMOCRATIC FREEDOM

Abstract

Rousseau, the intellectual father of the French revolution, a representative of the 18^th-century enlightenment,  but a trenchant critique of modernity,  was brilliant, though notoriously controversial, and yet an influential philosopher. Rousseau aired his disquiet about the enlightenment project, as he could with acuity foresee, which his contemporaries could not,  the consequences of progression in rationalism, developments in science and technology, and the emergence of increasing social inequalities in bourgeois society. That was Rousseau’s extraordinary achievement. Yet, he was ridiculed and slighted by his contemporary philosophes. But in the annals of the history of ideas, Rousseau’s prescience stands out shiningly and his brilliant contemporaries appear somewhat dim. This paper is an attempt to  understand and critically appreciate the political thought of Jean Jacques Rousseau, as well as the influence he had on western political thought, and to posit that he was  above all else an apostle of democratic freedom and trail blazer of Republicanism.

 Rosseau’s central problematique is to find a solution to the predicament of the civilized man in a modern society characterized by alienation, ‘unfreedom’, and inequality. Rousseau argues that a solution is possible through a new kind of politics when the state is reconstituted in a fashion wherein it is always guided by the ‘general will’ of its members. The concept of ‘general will is Rousseau’s original contribution to political philosophy.

Rousseau was a prolific writer[i], and ‘he left the stamp of his strong and original genius on politics, education, religion, and literature. One can find Rousseau at the ‘entrance of all the paths leading to the present’(Wayper:1971,136). But he leaves behind an ambivalent, ambiguous legacy, partly because of the eclectic nature of his work, and partly because of his epigrammatical writing, which produced an effect, but also controversies.‘[T]here is no writer about whom it has been more difficult to find an agreement than about Rousseau’.(Wayper,1971:136). This is evident from the fact that scholars have often interpreted Rousseau in contradictory ways. Cassirer saw him as an incomparable democrat. 20^th-century critics Cobban, Talmon, Berlin find Rousseau’s political theory highly authoritarian. Talmon indicts Rousseau as a totalitarian theorist, prepared to coerce individuals in the name of social justice and public freedom. (Talmon, 1960, 74-88). Plamenatz (1975) considers Rousseau as Marx’s precursor. Colletti (1969) thinks  Rousseau to be on the doorsteps of socialism. Vaughan detects a logical discrepancy between Rousseau’s earlier and later writings.  The first phase of his work, Discourse on Inequality is marked with defiant individualism, while in the later phase, The Social Contract there is defiant collectivism. (Vaughan,1962, 21-22).  Wayper (1971) finds Rousseau astride two traditions of political theorizing- the will and artifice tradition, as well as the organistic theory of the state.

His notable work in political philosophy includes – ‘ Discourses on the Origins of Inequality, ‘Discourse on Political Economy, ‘ Social Contract, and ’Considerations on the Government of Poland’. He also wrote on musicology, educational theory, botany, and literature. He produced popular literature, such as La Nouvellie Heosie, as well as operas and studies of music. Emile is considered to be the best ever tract on education.  One can categorize Rousseau’s political writings into two periods. In the first period that saw Discourse on the Sciences and Arts, and  Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Rousseau is a romantic rebel who attacks the morally decadent ancien regime,  lends qualified support to modernity, laments reason’s artificiality, and the eclipse of sentiments. He finds progress in arts and sciences to have corrupted humanity.  In the second period that saw The Social Contract, Rousseau is sober, trying to build up a torn-down unjust society in tune with the age of reason. There is only an apparent contradiction between the two phases. In fact, the first phase serves as a prelude to the second wherein the theory of General Will is expounded.  To understand his purpose and theory we need to begin with Rousseau, the man, and his times.

.