Rousseau

Just realized I didn't post any questions or a reading guide for Rousseau, sorry about that!

As you move into part two of the Second discourse....well, first, stop and enjoy the glorious rhetorical flourish he uses to initiate the discussion in the second half. His attack on private property, here, is premature. He's been explaining a state of nature in which humans are more like animals than the people we recognize--no language, no culture, etc. So obviously, the first move away from the state of nature can't be property. Look at his discussion of concepts and language--people in the state of nature couldn't even conceive of the concept of property, let alone make a claim for it.

So the first part of part II is devoted to explaining the various stages and steps of how we descend from the state of nature into modern society. There are various developments, and they can be grouped into three categories: psychological, social/political, and technological. As you read this, try to keep a list of the various developments, with particular attention to the ways they might interact with and encourage each other.

Eventually, this leads to the moment of the "bad social contract." As with our first two texts, keep an eye open for that moment in the text. What is nature of this social contract, and why is it bad, in Rousseau's estimation?

Rousseau knows better than to suggest that American Indians are in a true state of nature, but he does argue they are closer to that state than we (European civilization) are. In what ways does their world resemble the state of nature, and what similarities does it share with our world?

In the end, JJR returns, in a rather desultory fashion, to the original question proposed by the academy of Dijon: What is the origin of the inequality amongst men, and is it justifiable? What is his answer? Is this satisfying?

Rousseau has produced, with this text, a work of critical theory: He has offered substantial criticisms of both society and previous approaches to political theory. However, he offers very little by way of positive political theory here—that is, suggestions about what should be done to remedy this unfortunate situation. First, why wouldn’t JJR advocate a return to the state of nature, given his preference for that state? Secondly, can you imagine a positive political theory of another sort emerging from this critique? What might it look like? (We’ll return to this question why we read The Social Contract. Look for connections between these two works