A Critical Analysis of Jean-jacques Rousseau’s Concept of Inequality

A Critical Analysis of Jean-jacques Rousseau’s Concept of Inequality

 

Content Structure of A Critical Analysis of Jean-jacques Rousseau’s Concept of Inequality

• The abstract contains the research problem, the objectives, methodology, results, and recommendations
• Chapter one of this thesis or project materials contains the background to the study, the research problem, the research questions, research objectives, research hypotheses, significance of the study, the scope of the study, organization of the study, and the operational definition of terms.
• Chapter two contains relevant literature on the issue under investigation. The chapter is divided into five parts which are the conceptual review, theoretical review, empirical review, conceptual framework, and gaps in research
• Chapter three contains the research design, study area, population, sample size and sampling technique, validity, reliability, source of data, operationalization of variables, research models, and data analysis method
• Chapter four contains the data analysis and the discussion of the findings
• Chapter five contains the summary of findings, conclusions, recommendations, contributions to knowledge, and recommendations for further studies.
• References: The references are in APA
• Questionnaire

 

 

Abstract of A Critical Analysis of Jean-jacques Rousseau’s Concept of Inequality

The question of inequality appears to be a very topical issue in the 21^st century. This is because it has brought about chaos, poverty and strives in the society, especially among the female gender. With inequality, people are maltreated as humans; they are used as means to an end instead of an end in themselves. This was what prompted Jean Jacques Rousseau to interrogate the issue of inequality. For Rousseau, the rise of inequality in the society owes its strength and growth to the development of our faculties and the advancement of the human mind and this became permanent and legitimate through the establishment of property and laws. From the above, it becomes clear that property and society have not only helped to facilitate a higher standard of living, but also endorse inequality among human beings. Employing the critical analytic method, this research interrogates the problem of inequality by Jean Jacques Rousseau and it was palpable that inequality is present in our society and it cannot be totally wiped out because it has led to an establishment of an organized society through the implementation of laws. However, to forestall abuse and the negative burden of inequality, the burden of cruelty should be removed, the oppressed should be enlightened and human reason should take precedence over sentiment in our mode of operation.

 

Chapter One of A Critical Analysis of Jean-jacques Rousseau’s Concept of Inequality

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

           In every nation, society, village and family, there is a unique feature called inequality which over the years have not just been a social problem but has brought about chaos, poverty and strives among men. Inequality is a social problem which has been in existence over the years and it has been discussed by different scholars in different ways. Looking at the concept of inequality, inequality means different things to different people, whether inequality should encapsulate ethical concept such as desirability of a particular system of rewards or simply mean differences in income is the subject of much debate.[1] It appears that inequality has always been an inherent factor in the society, whereby we are been faced with different challenges and questions. Inequality has been in existence right from the ancient era through the medieval era, to the modern era and finally the contemporary era. Inequality has a lot to do with humans and our society, it is like a normal air we breathe; it is present in everywhere we find ourselves.

           Inequality prevailed in the ancient era, the early Greeks did not have their laws written on stone or wall, but they had their laws in the minds of their leaders. In Athens for instances, we see the theme inequality in their leadership system and educational system; the boys and girl were separated, the girls were to help serve the leaders and to help in reproduction in other to multiple their military to help in defending the city of Athens. Even within the boys we can still see inequality; the boys were divided into two group, the able boys (strong boys) and the weak boys, the strong boys were sent into military for training at a tender age to help defend the city of Athens, while the weak boys were used as servant, to help in the production of the food in the city.[2] After the Persian war which lasted from 500 to 499 B.C. Athens became the center of ancient Greek culture and through inequality in Athens at that time “men began to question the older blind loyalty to the powers of the state and many began to assert their own independence and their right to a life more or less free from the dominance of the reestablished government”.[3]

           Among the Sophist, inequality existed in the society; they focused on questions concerning human affairs, such as knowledge, value and actions and thereby expanded the range of philosophy beyond merely cosmological concerns. Gorgias who is a well-known sophist, also perceived the concept of inequality in the society, he argued that “the laws were mere inventions of the weaker members of the group of society, to enslave and hold down the strong”.[4] For Gorgias the maker of the laws are weak, they make laws to suit themselves and their interest, thereby intimidating the strong members of the society. Gorgias established the fact that inequality existed, they were weak and strong members of the society and the weak make laws to protect their interest, thereby making the strong to tremble on their feet.

           In the life of Socrates, we can also see that inequality existed in the society, laws were made to favor the state men, which lead to the dead of Socrates because he didn’t want to take part in the injustice in the society. After the death of Socrates, Plato became politically motivated, which may have been a turning point in his life. In the philosophy of Plato, we see the concept inequality; in Plato’s political theory, he divided the state into three classes; the higher class which are the rulers, the middle class which are the guardians and the lower class which are the merchant. For Plato, the rulers should be well grounded in philosophy so they can lead the people justly, the guardians should be the military of the state, in other to protect and defend the state, while the merchant are the labourers who help in the production system of the state. However, Plato took up the problem were Socrates had left and started to find a solution. In his politics, Plato was open to the potential equality of men and women, stating that women were not equal to men in terms of strength and virtue, but were equal to men in terms of rational and occupational capacity and hence in the ideal republic should be educated and allowed to work alongside men without differentiation.[5] From the following, we see that Plato established the fact that man cannot be equal, he believed that such organization will give a best possible state and each individual will be able to develop to the fullest. Aristotle, who was a student of Plato, developed a philosophy of state which resembled that of his teacher very much. We can see the theme inequality in Aristotle’s philosophy, in his politics, Aristotle saw women as subject to men, but as higher than slaves and lacking authority; he believed the husband should exert political rule over the wife.[6] “Aristotle believed that slavery was just practice in a good state, since it was for him a natural institution”.[7] However, he held all foreigners of all nations to be inferior to the Greeks and thus, not qualified to enjoy the same rights with the Greek, he admitted only foreigners to be the slave class. Aristotle also in his definition of justice and fairness observed that, justice is equality; and so, it is, but not for all persons, only for the equal. Inequality is also said to be just; and so, it is, but not for all persons, only for the unequal.[8]In the ancient Greek world, gender inequality existed. Women in the ancient Greek world had few rights in comparison to male citizens. Unable to vote, own land, or inherit, a woman’s place was in the home and her purpose in life was the rearing of children. This, though, is a general description, and when considering the role of women in ancient Greece one should remember that information regarding specific city -states is often lacking, is almost always from male authors, and only in Athens can their status and role be described in any great detail. Neither are we sure of the practical and everyday application of the rules and laws that have survived from antiquity.[9] In Spartan women were treated somewhat differently than in other states. For example, they had to do physical training like men, were permitted to own land, and could drink wine. There were also categories of women which are less well-documented than others such as professional women who worked in shops and as prostitutes and courtesans; the social rules and customs applied to them are even more vague than for the female members of citizen families. Finally, in contrast to the lot of most women, some exceptionally and exceptional, rose above the limitations of Greek society and gained lasting acclaim as poets, philosophers, leaders, and physicians.

           In the medieval era, everything and ideas were centered on the church because most scholars were Christian scholars and sought to protect the doctrine of the church. They all held the view that to have true knowledge is to have knowledge about God. During this period of scholasticism, man was subjected under some authority, the state and the rulers assumed control over man and so man found himself everywhere under the control of some authority. In the process, there grew up this idea that the king or ruler gets his idea from God and thus could not be question. Any disobedience to the king or ruler was disobedience to God and this placed a complete domination of the church and state on man.[10] Furthermore, in Thomas Aquinas political philosophy the best system of government is monarchy and the ruler or state men should be obedient to the rulers of the church because the state draws its power over men from the church. For Aquinas, “the end of the church, a super natural end, is higher than that of the state, which must subordinate itself to the church in matters bearing upon the supernatural life.”[11] Here, we see that inequality prevailed in the society, Aquinas gave more powers and authority to the church leaders over the state and man, and the state rulers over man. He believed that the church leaders had divine ideas from God and the state is as a result of this divine idea from God, therefore the church becomes more superior over the state and man. This makes one individual more superior to another and thereby establishing a form of inequality among men; the church rulers, the state rulers and normal individuals. For Augustine holds firmly to the position of the church to be supreme over the state and the head of the church is to rule over the rulers of the state. For him the rulers of the state may make mistakes while the ruler of the state can never make mistake since he is a representative of God on earth.[2] In this era, we see that all men were not equal, because the church men were assumed to be superior to the state and the individuals in the state and claim that their ideas are directly from a supreme source and therefore are infallible.[13]

           Inequality existed in the modern era. This era marked the end of the medieval era through the Renaissance movement which was a land mark in European history as well as in the history of western philosophy. It was at this time that man began to assert his own freedom and to challenge the power of rulers who held key positions in the state. This era actually brings out the differences in man, based on man’s inventions and how they were treated in the state. The most influential work that contributed to the end of the medieval era was the work of Niccolo Machiavelli in his book titled The Prince. He was the first to discuss politics without the introduction of ethics or jurisprudence. His politics revolves on the pursuit, attainment and substance of state power, he identified two means of acquiring power which are; by law which is fair to man and by brut which is the way of the beast.[14] For him, man has to do anything he can to attain power, even if means to kill. This system was used in Italy and it’s also applicable to our present Nigeria society. People do whatever it takes to attain power and thereby bringing inequality in the society. The strong or powerful become stronger or powerful while the weak become weaker, which bring about inequality in the society. Thomas Hobbes also in his famous book the Leviathan stated the inequality that existed in the state of nature. For him the state of nature was a state of lawlessness, chaos and war. Man then decided to come together and surrender their rights and properties to one authority in other for their rights and properties to be safe guarded. Thus, power is being given to one man, which makes him very powerful and above others in the society, thereby establishing inequality in the society. For John Locke, the state of nature is a state of perfect freedom and equality. Men were their own judge and master, each seeking his good individually. Locke agreed to the personal ownership of private property, for him you can acquire as many properties you can, so far it does not affect the other person adversely.[15] This gives room for poverty in the society, thereby establishing inequality in the society; creating a division between the rich and the poor. Due to the inequality in the society, Karl Marx postulated his theory on historical materialism to analyze and critique the development of capitalism and the role of class struggles in systemic economic change. Karl Marx identified inequality in the society and observed that there are 2 classes of people in the society, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.[16] The bourgeoisie are the ruling class that owns the means of production and extract their wealth through appropriation of the surplus product produced by the proletariat and the proletariats are there laborers employed to produce goods and services. There was a gap between the rich (bourgeoisie) and the poor (proletariat), the bourgeoisie exploiting the proletariat, thereby making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

           The French revolution is regarded as the most violent and the most universally significant because it completely changed the political and social structure in France. The French Revolution had general causes common to all the revolutions of the West at the end of the 18th century and particular causes that explain why it was by far the most violent and the most universally significant of these revolutions. The first of the general causes was the social structure of the West. The wealthy commoners known as the bourgeoisie aspired or seek to political power in those countries where it did not already possess/enjoy/hold it.  The peasant wanted to get rid of the last vestiges of feudalism so as to acquire the full rights of landowners and to be free to increase their holdings. Higher standard of living had reduced the mortality rate among adults.[17] This, together with other factors, had led to an increase in the population of Europe for several centuries. A larger population created a greater demand for food and consumer goods. The discovery of new gold mines in Brazil had led to a general rise in prices throughout the West indicating a prosperous economic situation. Later this development slackened, and economic crises, provoking alarm and even revolt, became frequent. Arguments for social reform began to be advanced. Some philosophers or intellectuals whose writing inspired this argument were influenced by the 17^th century theories such as Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire etc. The French Revolution led to the bourgeoisie exclusion from political power and positions of honor, the peasants were acutely aware of their situation and were less and less willing to support the anachronistic and burdensome feudal system, French participation in the American Revolution had driven the government to the brink of bankruptcy, France was the most populous country in Europe, and crop failures in much of the country coming on top of a long period of economic difficulties, compounded existing restlessness, the French monarchy, no longer seen as divinely ordained, was unable to adapt to the political and societal pressures that were being put forth on it.[18] This revolution was as a result of the widespread inequality between the rich and poor classes alongside growing dissatisfaction with the antiquated feudal system among the poor.[19] It brought new ideas to Europe including liberty and freedom for the commoner as well as the abolishment of slavery and the rights of women.[20]

           In the contemporary era, inequality can be easily spotted out in this era, from the end of world war 11 until 1971 when John Rawls published his famous work titled A Theory of Justice which addressed the problem of distributive justice. He postulated two principles of justice; he believed that “a society should be structured so that the liberty of a member should not infringe upon that of another. Secondly, inequities; either social or economic-are to be allowed if the worst off will be better off than they might be under an equal distribution.”[21] Rawls established the fact that inequality existed in the society and concludes that this inequality should not make it harder for those without resources to occupy position e.g. Public offices. Thomas More who is known for his famous work titled Utopia; he was against the political corruption that was happening in Europe at that time. Aside from the corruption on Europe, he also talked about the hypocrisy of religion that was happening at that time. What really lead Thomas More to write on Utopia was the inequality that was going on at that time. He lays most of the problems of theft on the practice of enclosure – the enclosing of common land – and the subsequent poverty and starvation of people who are denied access to land because of sheep farming.[22] Nietzsche’s notion of Ubermensch (the superman) also depicts a form of inequality among men, where the superman’s sole desire is the will power and his demand for a morality that transcends all accepted moralities, carrying it beyond good and evil.[23] Jeremy Bentham also looked into the inequality in the society and became the first thinker to analyze social justice in terms of individual benefit. “He advocated for individual and economic freedoms, the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, equal rights for women, the right to divorce and the decriminalizing of homosexual acts.”[24]

           It was because of these reasons that Rousseau had to critically examine the origin of inequality in mankind and provide possible solution to the problem of inequality. Rousseau also in his discourse on inequality holds that inequality that prevails in the society is as a result of environmental factors and perfectibility as will be discussed in this work. For him the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Inequality prevails as a result of competitions, greed and desire, thereby people are not treated as humans. Inequality brings about class difference in the society, and majority of people in the society instead of being carried along, are left behind, where only the strong and capable strive and even trample on others to reach their end, as Charles Darwin would say, “survival of the fittest”.[25] To curtail the problems of inequality, Rousseau aimed at constructing a political institution that allowed the co-existence of free and equal citizens in a community where they themselves are sovereign. These and some other issues covering inequality in Rousseau is the concern of this research work.

           This work intends to first give a clarification of concept, inequality and the types of inequality that Rousseau was concerned with. Then, it will discuss the natural man in the state of nature and how man progressed from the natural state to the civil society which was where inequality emerged from. After establishing the origin of inequality, it will discuss the ways Rousseau suggested to prevent inequality in the society. This will be followed by a critical analysis of the work, then the conclusion.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

           Inequality has occupied a prominent place in the thoughts of man because it has brought about chaos, corruption, greed, poverty and the devaluation of human beings. This has made mankind to ponder on the social condition in which they lived, thereby questioning the origin or cause of inequality in the society. This was what properly stimulated Jean Jacques Rousseau to address the issues of inequality in the society, thereby showing how inequality was established in the society. For Rousseau, the origin of inequality was established in the society due to one man enclosing a piece of land to himself, which has brought about the establishment of pride, shame, envy and contempt, thereby revenge became terrible and men became bloody and cruel.

           Looking at Rousseau’s discourse on inequality, there are some basic themes that are of major interest, such as; corruption, freedom, need, authenticity and modern life. There is a gab that needs to be filled in other to make Rousseau concept of inequality solid or complete. Even though Rousseau looked at the main concern of inequality in mankind, thereby proved how inequality was established in the society and how man is said to be unequal naturally, morally and socially. What makes Rousseau work not solid or complete is because Rousseau didn’t succeed in providing a possible solution to the problem of inequality. This becomes a problem this work will look into, because even if the origin or cause of inequality is established and how inequality is said to be measured naturally, morally and socially, it doesn’t put an end to the inequality in the society. Thus, this works will give a critical look on the problem of inequality. Inequality is inevitable because it cannot be totally eradicated from the society because it has led to a better standard of living, implementation of laws and even development. We can’t say that the state of nature is the best because in the state of nature man did not grow and it did not bring out the best and worst in people which will not lead to development.

Aims and Objective of the Study

           The aim of this work is to critically analyze the concept of inequality according to Jean Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau postulated three kinds of inequality which are; natural inequality, political inequality and social inequality. This work also aims to show when exactly man is said to be equal or unequal natural or physically, morally or politically and socially. The objective of this work is to establish that inequality is present in mankind and it cannot be totally wiped out of mankind because inequality has not just brought about the differences in mankind but has improved our standard of living. It is also to create awareness that though we are unequal but we can apply human reason to our actions and behavior and make the society a better place to live and it will also examine argument for and against Rousseau’s concept of inequality.

Significance of the Study

     In a society like ours, the concept of inequality is very much prevalent among men and women in the family, at the labor market and in different kinds of occupation. This work would help create the impression that property and society have and does not only helped to create and endorse inequality among human beings but has helped to facilitate a better standard of living. Inequality starts from birth that is why men are different right from birth. They have different levels of intelligence quotient (I. Q.) they do not reason in the same way, one may be brighter than the other in some way and this makes them unequal. These have eventually brought about development both in the individual and the society at large. If all humans were to be equal thereby making them to think the same way, there would be no form of development such as technological development, economic development, social development etc. and this makes it difficult for inequality to be totally wiped out because of the civilization it has brought to us.

Scope and Limitation to the Study

     This research will critically analysis Jean Jacques Rousseau’s concept of inequality. This study covers the type of inequality in which Jean Jacques Rousseau postulated, which are; natural inequality, moral inequality and social inequality. In the course of carrying out this research work, certain limitations were encountered; this includes the problem of time allocated for the study, the unavailability of books in the library, poor network for browsing which limits me to accessing some necessary and vital information required for this research work.

Research Method and Chapterization

     This research work will employ the analytic method. This has to do with among other things, conceptual clarifications, definitions and explanations. By this method, terms, notion and concepts are broken down into understandable units of connected ideas.[26] To aid a clearer understanding, this work will analyze the key term involved, which is concept and inequality. It will also examine the different kinds of inequality and showing at what point one is said to be naturally, politically and morally unequal. This work is divided into four chapters. Chapter one is the introduction which is from the background to the study to the definition of terms. Chapter two, deals with Review of related literature. Chapter three deals with Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s concept of inequality. This chapter will also talk about the life of Jean Jacques Rousseau, his political thoughts and a critical analysis of Jean Jacques Rousseau’s concept of Inequality follows. Chapter four is the conclusion.

Definition of Terms

     The key terms that will be clarified in this research work are concept and inequality.

Concept

           Concepts are everywhere; we use them all the time. Concept is a set of assumption, attitudes and beliefs. Thoughts are seen as having constituents or parts, namely, concept.[27] “A concept is a mental abstraction which allows generalization and the extension of knowledge from some known objects to others to other unknown.”[28] It assimilates two or more facts into a common mental unit. For instance, the concept book includes all particular books. It does so base on essential characteristics of multi pieces of paper or pages combined into a bound stack.[29] Basically, a concept is a generalized idea about a class of object, attributes, occurrences or processes that has been given the name. In other words, a concept is an idea expressed as a symbol or sign. According to the Classical Theory, concepts are complex mental representations whose structure generally encodes a specification of necessary and sufficient conditions for their own application.[30] Consider for example, the concept bachelor, the idea is that bachelor is actually a complex mental representation whose constitutions are unmarried and man. Something falls under, or is in the extension of bachelor just in case it satisfies any of this constituent concepts. Or to take another example, the concept knowledge might be analyzed as Justified True Belief[31]. In that case, something falls under the concept knowledge just in case it is an instance of a true belief that’s justified.[32]

Inequality 

             Inequality means lack of equality. It can be difference in size, degree and circumstances. Inequality is a condition of being unequal, lack of evenness, social disparity, and disparity of distribution or opportunity, the condition of being variable.[33] For Ted Honderich, “Inequality consists in the differences between individuals or groups in the possession of what is desirable or undesirable”.[34] Inequality can be present in everywhere we find ourselves and there are several types of inequality; economic inequality, income inequality, wealth inequality, gender inequality, social inequality, political inequality, cultural inequality, religious inequality, physiological inequality amongst others. Basically, this work will focus on only three types of inequality which include; natural or physical inequality, moral or political inequality and social inequality as it pertains to how Jean-Jacques Rousseau perceives it.

             Natural or physical inequality result from natural difference in physical and mental abilities and is established by nature. That is, difference in age, health, strength and intelligence are all physical inequality. According to Mathew Lawrence, “political inequality exists where, despite a procedurally equal democratic process with universal suffrage and regular elections, certain groups, classes or individuals have greater influence over and participate more in political decision making process, with policies outcome systematically weighted in their favour.”[35] In other words, Political Inequality is the differences brought about by the ability to access federal resources which therefore have no civic equality. For Alex Afouxenidis “political inequality is structured differences in the distribution of political resources.”[36] That is, in treatment and responsibility difference, some people are more benefited and can quickly receive more privilege than others. “Social Inequality refers to the unequal distribution of Resources (power, wealth and income) and opportunities (health, education and employment)”.[37] Therefore, social inequality takes place when wealth in a specified society are disseminated haphazardly or unequally, usually through norms of distribution that produce unambiguous patterns along lines of socially defined sets of persons.