Semi formal work...just seeing what it looks like on here, sick halloween pics by the way
Getting Wet
In Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Second Discourse: On the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men, the Frenchman makes use of a piece of artwork, something he initially, in his first discourse, deems as a catalyst in man’s degradation as a species. But Rousseau does not include this image of a savage man pointing to a village of huts to try to impress upon us the world of fine arts. Rather, the piece serves as an iconoclasm of not only “religious” images, but ones related to modern civilization as well. In other words, it is as if Rousseau drops an image of epic proportions into our seemingly still pond of civilized existence. The image of savage man lets rip a tide that attempts, with the help of his arguments, to wash away civilized man’s notions of vanity, pride, and property, in effect, instilling a new notion of what it means to be free.
As we see in Rousseau’s notes, the image titled “He goes back to his equals” is the story of modern man’s inability to ever truly convert a savage into a civilized man. As Dutch missionaries occupied the
Rousseau, in the second half of the discourse, traces back the evolution of man’s social tendencies. “The more the mind was enlightened,” he writes, “the more industry was perfected” (146). As man became more aware of his surroundings and his mind, he discovered uses for objects such as sharp stones and learned how to make hatchets. He could now cut wood and scoop earth, which gave him the first hut in which he could dwell. This was “the epoch of a first revolution,” Rousseau writes, “which produced the establishment and differentiation of families, and which introduced a sort of property – from which many quarrels and fights already arose” (146). But Rousseau notes that in this primitive stage, the likelihood of a man wishing to dislodge his neighbors was small, for it would require him to engage in an exposing fight. From this, the first developments of “heart” were effected because the family was now intact and a “reciprocal affection and freedom” existed between members of the family, in turn giving rise to the “sweetest sentiments known to men” (146). But, as Rousseau notes, this also enacted the first division between men and women and life started to become more sedentary. As the two sexes, “by their slightly softer life,” began to enjoy leisure, they used it to devise new commodities not known to their ancestors. According to Rousseau, this was the “first yoke they imposed on themselves without thinking about it” (147).
These commodities did more than just soften their bodies and minds. Overtime they began to lose all their initial pleasure, and in turn became what Rousseau called “true needs.” Living without such inventions “became much more cruel than possessing them was sweet; and people were unhappy to lose them without being happy to possess them” (147). Everything begins to change says Rousseau. People who once wandered in the woods now come together to form bands or nations. They then become accustomed to comparing different objects, leading to the development of notions of beauty and preference. As they gathered in front of huts or around large trees, they looked at each other and wanted to be looked at themselves. As Rousseau writes, “public esteem had a value,” and this was the beginnings of our never-ending history of “inequality” and “vice” (149).
Rousseau’s rhetoric in the Second Discourse does not seem to be in accordance with the nature of “He goes back to his equals.” The time of the joyful Hottentot that Rousseau romanticizes must have been short lived if he very quickly describes how it all started to go awry. What then is Rousseau trying to tell his readers? If it is impossible to go back, and if the day of the Hottentot maybe is not the ideal form of man, what is? In his Social Contract, Rousseau notes that “man is born free but everywhere he goes he is in chains.” It seems as if the philosopher knows there is no where to turn other than towards higher and higher levels of freedom. By questioning our nature as a predominately dominant being in this world, Rousseau opens the door to a new way of thinking. Why we cannot go back to the huts may not be the correct question. Rather, it may be how can we continue to find the “sentiment of existence” even in the midst of terrible societal systems, tyrannies, monarchies, and even republics gone astray? More importantly what piece does freedom really play in this puzzle?
Like the online documentary Zeitgeist, Rousseau may have “sacrificed a measure of precision for a greater degree of suggestion” in order to get the framework of modern civil society a little wet (Shaw).
Works Cited,
Masters, Rogers D. Jean-Jacques Rousseau: The First and Second Discourses. Trans.
Roger D. and Judith R. Masters.
Shaw, Charles. “The Big Lie: Parsing the Mythology of Zeitgeist.” Oct. 17. 2007.
http://www.realitysandwich.com/big_lie_parsing_mythology_zeitgeist
