Rousseau, part II: The Social Contract

We begin this text with one of the three or four most famous lines we'll encounter this quarter:

"Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains."

This puzzling line should be interpreted in light of The Discourse on Inequality. Describe what Rousseau means by our "chains."

Chapter II presents an account of the state of nature that is much less detailed and simplified than the previous state of nature Rousseau told us about. Don't worry too much about that, just note that this view is his working assumption for this book.

Chapters III and IV are criticisms of the idea of the right of the stronger and the idea that slavery is in some way a "natural" feature of social life. How does he refute these ideas?

The cunundrum of chapter V: How do a group of individuals become a political entity; that is, "a people"? How do "all those people who live on that Island west of Britain" become "The Irish People"? The answer in chapter VI.....

The social compact (think contract). Chapter VI, paragraph four: read it. Read it again. Before continuing on, try to sketch a response to this problem. What kind of contract could provide what Rousseau is looking for here? If this seems near-impossible, well, that's because it is--this is a very high standard. Hobbes has us giving up everything but our right to defend our own life, and Rousseau says we need a social contract that makes us as free as we were before.

The answer should be puzzling. Total alienation. What do you think that means to Rousseau?

(note: the key to all this is Rousseau's concept of the general will, which is asserted but not explained in the last line of pg. 470. Book II is all about the general will, so move on and comfort yourself with the thought that Rousseau will explain this weirdness soon enough, or at least try to)

Chapters VII and VIII further explain the nature of the political community we've created. How important our our individual identities in all of this? Why does Rousseau place so little emphasis on individuals compared to, say, Locke?

The final chapter of book I gives an account of property under these conditions. Will private property exist? What limitations will be placed on it.