In A Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau does bring up some good points regarding the natural man and is able to point out some flaws in Rousseau’s argument. However, some of Rousseau’s argument is based on a very romanticized version of Native American culture, leading me to find it difficult to agree with all of his points.
One of the things Rousseau does is that he refutes Hobbes argument. He points out that Hobbes says that man is “naturally evil because he has no sense of goodness.” Rousseau counters this point with the point “one could say that savages are not wicked precisely because they do not know what is to be good.” This ties in back to our discussion on what makes a monster. Some definitions in class have us discussing how society has no monsters, but defines monsters through a mixture of cultural values and socialization. This perspective makes sense if we look at cultural relativism and ethnocentrism. If we look at cannibals from our own western values, we’d say they are evil, but a cannibal would look at our values are evil. Additionally, if we look at The Tempest it could be said Caliban only became a monster after he met Prospero and that from our society, Caliban’s urges are monstrous, but they were brought forth by Miranda. So in a sense, Rousseau has a point here
However, there are also times Rousseau is wrong. Downright wrong. He makes some references to the Native Americans as noble savages, independent people without society. But, contrary to belief at this time, Native Americans such as the Iroquois, the Souix and the Inuit, actually have very highly developed societies. The Iroquois were actually very advanced and created a treaty that is thought to have been the forefather of the constitution used by the United States. Additionally, one of the greatest aspects of Native American life, WAS it’s community, was how man and women depended upon each other and how their traditions (essentially laws) regulated their actions. So if Rousseau argues laws create passions that prove detrimental to man, explain those societies, that were working perfectly fine until the Europeans came over. Who knows if they would have failed later on, but they were working fine.
I look forward to comments and the lecture.
I think I would have to be in Hobbes boat. Team Hobbes! Because, if I remember our seminar correctly, I would have to agree with the idea that the two men are kind of talking about something different. Am I on the wrong line of thought? Anyways, what I got was that Rousseau is saying “no, because if we look back in time to the state of nature…” whereas Hobbes is saying “if society were to collapse right now, we would descend into a state of nature.” Your thought about monsters is interesting. While I agree it is perspective that determines and is also projected onto other, I also believe that people can bring the worst in each other and make each other into monsters. I really like the question of whether monsters are a product of society or the state of nature. As in The Tempest we see Caliban as the product of Prospero’s teachings. But could you say that to Caliban he is in a state of nature as he is threatened with sudden and violent death, which (if I remember correctly) is what Prospero does? All in all I am in team Hobbes because of the television show The Walking Dead which pushes people into the state of nature and they are threatened with sudden and violent death. Maybe this is what Hobbes is alluding to? Hobbes – Predicts Zombie Apocalypse 2013.