This is not the original illustration, but it gives the general idea of what our drawing looked like.
(Source: Bradley Hebdon, http://www.uxbydesign.org/2009/06/11/cure-depression-by-embracing-the-caveman-within/)
 |
| This is also not the original drawing, but it gives the main idea. (Source: http://blissfulwalls.com/product_family_stickmen.htm) |
We realized at the end of the discussion that our drawings were not accurate according to Rousseau. He stated that social contracts enforced inequality between people. Rousseau describes life out of the state of nature as characterized by "honour without virtue, reason without wisdom, and pleasure without happiness," and says that social liberty is destroyed under a social contract. Out of the state of nature, life supposedly holds no meaning. This doesn't sound like a society in which I would want to live. How could anyone living under such conditions be happy? Yet, when we describe Rousseau's social contract, it sounds like the ideal life. It's a lifestyle that many aspire to attain; many are already living it.
So why is it that we seem so happy under a social contract that is creating inequality between everyone? Rousseau doesn't want to leave his state of nature of equal men and basic needs. But even now, as I see all of Rousseau's arguments, I would still want to live under a social contract. It's comfortable. We have luxuries that we wouldn't have otherwise. Does this mean that I'm okay with inequality? When the question is posed like that, the answer seems obvious: no. But clearly, that is not the case. Is inequality really such a bad thing, then?
Say we decide that it is, indeed, not such a bad thing after all. How do we decide who gets to be where on the chain of inequality? Who gets to be the despot that rules in the end, as we move completely out of Rousseau's state of nature? To be completely honest, if everyone is unequal, I would certainly want to be towards the top of this metaphoric chain. Who would want to have less power than someone else? That's where it gets complicated. So maybe inequality isn't so great.
Rousseau argues that civilization has ruined itself by creating the social contract, and therefore, inequality. Looking at his view of civilization, however, I think that inequality is inevitable. People, by nature, gravitate toward each other to form units. Once those units are established, people will instinctively set up a system of social laws to follow. Are these social laws beneficial to civilization? Or is Rousseau correct in saying that they are detrimental to society?
Rousseau, to agree with you, also poses a weird double standard. Inequality, when asked directly about it, isn't all that grand. Who would want to say thumbs up to direct inequality? Reading along your post, I stumbled upon a thought that I'm curious as to whether or not you would agree. Rousseau's inequality in his state of civilization, like Marxism's inequality seems to hold true, is based on economical rather than social inequality (a lot of inequality, I know). I have plenty of disagreements with Rousseau's state of nature to begin with, but the inequality seems to go against what we have been raised with in the first with: competition in the economy. This is capitalism, and it's been surrounding us since birth. Naturally then, we butt heads with Rousseau. So, being the born capitalist who has to acknowledge that some will be more well off than others (why are we going for Michigan degrees in the first place?), I agree with you in saying that the social laws, whether they create some inequality or not, are beneficial to a functioning society. Not everyone can be Bill Gates, simply because there aren't sufficient resources to do so, or they haven't contributed enough to society like he is. So Rousseau can shut it for all I care. :o
ReplyDeleteI really think that Rousseau makes a good point in asking the people of today's society, is this really want we want? I also, however, believe that inequalities are a good thing in today's society because it gives people incentive to get to the top. If everyone just minded their own business, in their own little bubble, every man or woman fending for themselves, we wouldn't have much social interaction or anyone to depend on or have us to depend on. If we have these inequalities and have things such as tax brackets, for instance, it gives us the incentive to work harder to have a higher position in turn to make more money, but enough to stay in a tax bracket that won't rob you of your money when you get there. Going outside of the state of nature, we have the opportunity to make ourselves better and go beyond what we have as a result of coming out of the state of nature. Although there are downfalls of not being in the state of nature, such as competition, buying possessions in attempt to gain respect from others, and maybe having the feeling that you're not as good or not as happy as someone else, overall, I think coming out of the state of nature leaves room for people to better themselves and have relationships to learn from.
ReplyDeleteHi Sarah, I enjoyed reading your post and especially liked the fact that you did not only talk about why inequality is bad or why inequality is good, but instead, you talked about each point of view and in a sense, let the reader decide which is right and wrong. As for what I think, I believe that social laws are beneficial to society. As well, I agree with you that I really don't think that it is plausible to think about a society with 100% equality, but I also think that we need the inequality in our societies. Maybe the traditional American capitalist system has corrupted me, but if you ask me, like the person who commented above me pointed out, inequalities is what creates the drive and the hope that we can improve our lives. I'll be completely honest, if we were all equal, I would be extremely lazy. I would have nothing to work towards, no goals of improving because, in an equal society, there is really is no way to improve. Humans need the incentive to achieve bigger and better things, because if we don't, every worker's ambition to work is going to mightily decrease. Decreased ambition creates a decrease in the end product. What we end up with is a bunch of people who are equal, but find themselves with nothing to live for, as well as very few innovations being created and a lower quality of products, do to the lower quality of work and effort being put in. Obviously, there are bad things about leaving Rousseau's state of nature as well, but in general, I think that the overall benefits that we gain by leaving his state of nature clearly outweigh the benefits of staying in it.
ReplyDeleteMichael, I think that Rousseau was referring more about social inequalities (hierarchies, monarchs, despots, etc.) where as Marx is more about economic equality, where no one but the collective gets to own means of production. I think in Rousseau's theories, people use the economy as means to better their position in society. So even though economic inequality may be a part of Rousseau's social contract, the economy is just an aspect of the whole society.
ReplyDeleteI, like jrjurg and Andrew have pointed out, am also a firm believer in the capitalist system. I think it promotes innovation and competition which furthers our society. I agree completely with Andrew when he says that "if we were all equal, I would be extremely lazy." If there is no way to move up in society, why bother making any effort at all?
I think people are inherently driven by a desire to better themselves. The fact that people unconsciously drew the state of nature as dull and monotone while depicting being out of the state of nature as a happy experience reflects a lot about what we believe and says plenty about our motivations. Maybe it's because we were raised that way, or maybe it's something more.