 |
| Not a face of love, I'd say. http://theintentionalworkplace.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/jealousy.jpg |
 |
| I'd fall in love, too :D http://images.redbox.com/Images/EPC/Detail370/4069.jpg |
Rousseau, in his famous Discourse, would argue that the aforementioned jealous and protective ways of humans only occur after we have left the state of nature. He claims there is no love, no jealousy, and that people are carefree if it doesn't involve their own happiness. He essentially states that natural humans are utterly solitary creatures. Rousseau goes far enough on humans being natural loners that he states about sexual intercourse the following, "The want once gratified, the two sexes knew each other no more; and even the offspring was nothing to its mother, as soon as it could do without her." Bold claims Mr. Rousseau, bold claims indeed. My lovely momma loves me plenty even though I technically don't need her anymore, and I her, and I'm sure this would be the case whether I was born in a hospital or in the jungle. And hasn't Rousseau seen Friends With Benefits or No Strings Attached?! In both cases, the male and female stars were in it just for the pleasure, but love snaked its way into the relationships. But, wait! These couples were not in the state of nature; they were in states of civilization. And what caused this change of mind, and this change in being in a state of nature versus a state of civilization?
Property.
Somewhere along the way of nature, people go from being content with oneself without outside influence to having comparative self-love. This is derived from the emergence of Love and Language. When this jealousy starts creeping its ugly head into everything, eventually someone uses land, or property, to outdo someone else. Keeping up with the Jones' kicks in, and the state of nature is also kicked to the curb. Rousseau would then, the way I look at it, have us believe that we are not born with love or jealousy inside of us, that these feelings were developed over time, and that the simple proclamation of ownership is what moved us out of the state of nature.
To combat this, in my opinion, questionable claim, I have come up with a hypothetical situation with the imaginary savage Urgy-Lurgy, pictured below.
 |
| Urgy-Lurgy!! (free use clip-art) |
The Urgster is in a state of nature. He is essentially happy, worried about his self-preservation, and is a roamer of the land. He's had some one-night stands with other natural peeps, but he was mostly worried about his end of the stick and doesn't even remember some of his partners' names. This makes him a bit sad though, because a certain Shela-Mayla, one worth remembering, made him feel extra happy. Urgy misses Shela-Mayla, and hopes to reconnect with her in the near future. He wonders if Shela got pregnant, and genuinely hopes she is doing okay. One day, as Urgy was minding his own business, he sees Shela with some schmuck and they kiss. Depression mixed with rage enters Urgy's little heart, and he feels a feeling he never has felt before. Not knowing what to do, Urgy-Lurgy wanders into an area that happens to be loaded with a good and steady supply of food and decides he should stay in the general area to reap the awards provided to him. This area is pretty rainy though, so Urgy builds a little hut that he sometimes sleeps in when he wants to. He doesn't put up a mailbox saying "The Urgy-Lurgy Hut" or a flag claiming this hut to be his and only his. The hut is just there. One day, after Urgy was out doing his own thing, he returns to the (the, not his) hut. Inside the hut is some fellow man in the state of nature, let's say Booga-Boogy. Urgy, upon seeing another man in the hut he put labor into making, feels this odd sensation creep inside him. It isn't him having to pee, or anything else involving only him, but a feeling towards this Booga-Boogy. A feeling of animosity crawls down Urgy's spine. Who is this Booga to sleep in the hut he built? Booga didn't chop down trees and gather the materials needed to forge the hut like Urgy-Lurgy did. Urgy is mad at this other man for using the hut without asking him first. Urgy is protective towards this hut he built, and he gives the creepy Booga the boot out of the hut. To prevent this awkward situation from happening again, Urgy does create the sign "The Urgy-Lurgy Hut." Now the hut is his. He didn't claim this hut to be his because of self-comparative love, aka Urgy didn't craft this hut to essentially show-off to others. This property, unlike Rousseau's claim that property is created as compensation for when one is lacking something that another possesses, was claimed by Urgy out of his natural feelings of protection and jealousy. Where does the jealousy come from? No, not from Booga's really cool facial hair, but rather that Booga could use the benefits of the hut without having to put in the time to create it or give Urgy something to trade for the use of the hut. These feelings didn't develop over time inside Urgy, they were there innately and protection of his property is what triggered their occurrence. If strangers continue to try to use Urgy's hut without his permission, Urgy may want some help in protecting his land. Eventually, Urgy agrees to a certain set of rules laid out by Miney-Liney, some that take away his natural rights, in trade for protection of his hut, thus leaving the state of nature.
Now, who does this sound like instead of Rousseau and his comparative self-love ways?
You guessed it:
 |
| John Locke http://content.answcdn.com/main/content/img/webpics/John_Locke.jpg |
Do you agree? Does Locke's reasoning on property make more sense than Rousseau's? I am inclined to say yes, as I would be more worried about creating property for my own self benefit and claiming it is mine because I built it, rather than to make up for my inability to slam a rock like Lebrony-Woggy could. Is it just me, or would Rousseau be quite the heartless caveman? Feel free to comment below with whatever your thoughts may be.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. "Discourse on the Origin of Inequality." Rousseau: On the Origin of Inequality: First Part. Constitution.org, n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. <http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq_03.htm>.
Locke, John. "Second Treatise of Government." Https://docs.google.com/a/umich.edu. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.
I agree with you that humans are naturally jealous and protective people. This is a brutally honest statement that makes me sad, because we all want to believe that humans are selfless people who have good intentions. Although jealousy is not a positive characteristic, I believe that people’s jealousy sometimes results in positive self- improvement. People who are jealous of others will work harder to improve themselves so that they do not feel insecure or continue to battle with jealousy. The examples, you include, of how people are protective show how people think that others are out to get them. We wouldn’t have passwords on our phones unless we were certain our friends wouldn’t change our status on Facebook. We wouldn’t have locks on our doors unless we had faith that every person wouldn’t trespass. We constantly think people are going to sabotage opportunities or take from us, rather than give. I really liked how you talked about No Strings Attached because I think this is a perfect example of how Rousseau’s theory has flaws. I don’t agree with Rousseau’s belief that “there is no love, no jealousy, and that people are carefree if it doesn’t involve their own happiness.” Humans are much more complex than the “solitary creatures” he describes.
ReplyDelete