Rousseau: Natural Man vs. Social Man & Social Contract
Rousseau: Natural Man vs. Social Man
According to Rousseau, there is a fundamental difference between natural man and social man. The former lives in the state of nature, exemplified by the myth of the noble savage. For Rousseau, man in a state of nature, before living together in society, would be a good and happy man, independent of other men, driven by a healthy love of self (which is not evil) and compassion for others. In this natural state, man retains pure feelings, uncorrupted by social prejudice, and maintains a direct relationship with nature.
The natural state is presented by Rousseau as a hypothesis, not a historical reality. In contrast, social man lives in a state of society or cultural status. In this social state, which is more real than the natural state, man is driven by an unhealthy egoism that pursues its own interests at the expense of others. Thus, culture and progress have not made man happier, as believed by Enlightenment thinkers, but have instead led to inequality, injustice, and unhappiness. Culture and progress do not act as emancipatory elements but, within society, have corrupted men.
The Social Problem: Social Theory
Society corrupts man, but Rousseau is aware that returning to a primitive state is impossible. Instead, we must analyze society to understand what causes unhappiness and selfishness in humans, and reform it to create a community that fosters happiness. This involves two steps: first, identifying the source of social evil, and second, proposing reforms to reshape society.
The Origin of Inequality
For Rousseau, the origin of evil in society is inequality, resulting from property. This leads to social inequity as some men accumulate privileges over others. Additionally, it produces a permanent social conflict driven by selfishness and a lack of cooperation, as the desire to own more encourages selfishness. Thus, modern society is unjust and prevents the full realization of human beings because it does not lead to happiness.
The Social Contract
To reform society, Rousseau proposes a Social Contract. We cannot return to the state of nature, but the idea of the natural state should be used to create the foundations of a just and legitimate society. It seeks to establish the basis for a just social compact that can bring freedom, equality, and political power by establishing a social contract in which the people are sovereign.
This popular sovereignty is expressed in the general will, which is not merely the sum of individual wills. The will of all is the sum of selfish interests, but the general will is the collective subject, the citizen who always seeks the common good. Thus, the individual waives his or her personal selfishness by consenting to the laws that emanate from the general will. This waiver is not a loss of freedom, because the government must always respect individual rights, but it is the freedom to act according to own selfishness against the community. In this way, men can enter into a new state that is neither primarily individual selfishness nor natural. This new state is a rational and free society where moral principles eradicate evil and injustice, allowing each human being to achieve happiness and fulfillment.