Just Finished Reading: The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
This is yet another book that has been sitting on my shelves for quite some time. I bought it as a part of the collection of 20 Great Ideas books that changed the World sort of thing. Of the 20 I’m afraid that this is only the 2nd volume I’ve read to date – shame on me.
Anyway, I finally had to read this for my university course and polished it off in only a few days. Written in 1762 this classic of political philosophy is both surprisingly modern and easy to read. Rousseau puts forward the then revolutionary idea that the people, rather than the absolute monarch or aristocratic elite, and the sovereign entity in any state and that they – and they alone – can determine the type of government they will allow to govern them. This was incendiary stuff in the later 18th Century and copies of this work were actually publically burnt in his home city of Geneva (which personally I would count as quite an accolade).
Famous for his championing of the noble savage, Rousseau considered that the invention of society had been a basic error of judgement that, unfortunately, could not easily be undone so attempted to devise the best form of governments in the circumstances. He suggested that Monarchy was the best form of government for large countries or empires, that aristocracy (in the Ancient Greek sense of the best) for medium sized countries and democracy was only fit for small poor countries. He was also – despite being a devout Calvinist – dead set against the involvement of religion (in particular Catholicism) in the running or influencing of the State.
Despite being very much of its time The Social Contract (and its predecessor – of which more later) is a surprisingly modern sounding book. His analysis of political power and its abuses could easily be written today. His warnings about the corrupting effect of money could, likewise, be taken from the pages of today’s newspapers. Rousseau is definitely still worth reading and is, I think, more than capable of shining a light on modern political events. Highly recommended.
8 comments:
Does he sound decidedly modern because his ideas hold true to today, or because we took his ideas and built countries and governments on them, and it's our recognition of what government should be, based largely on his philosophy, that makes it seem timeless? I don't know if I said what I meant. Does he sound modern because his ideas were right, or only because we've bought into them? I've read him many times, just not in the last 12 months, I take that back, I've read excerpts because I assign him for my history class, but I haven't read _The Social Contract_ in its entirety for quite some time.
V V said: Does he sound decidedly modern because his ideas hold true to today, or because we took his ideas and built countries and governments on them, and it's our recognition of what government should be, based largely on his philosophy, that makes it seem timeless?
Good question(s). I think what I found most modern about his writting both in this and another book was his historical approach to human development. He didn't imagine them dropping in from nowhere but actually developing along lines not disimilar to those I've read in modern anthropology books. He was almost, but not quite, Darwinian at times.
I don't think its wholly about his ideas being translated into todays politics. For instance Rousseau wasn't a democrat in that he didn't think that democracy was a viable form of government for most countries. He also loathed the idea - which he regarded as farcical - of representative democracies. He particularly criticised England for calling itself a democracy when the people only voted every 4-5 years and called Englishmen fools for believing they were free because of it.
I think that his modern 'feel' is partially what he said but more in the way he said it.
I was listening to a professor teach philosophy and he commented that it is typically much easier to read a philosopher's actual writings than it is to read the modern commentators on the philosopher. The professor, Peter Kreeft, encouraged people to read the philosophers themselves and said they will find them not hard to understand as we think they would be. I want to expand my reading to more philosophers of antiquity. I want to read Locke, Plato, Aristotle etc. I have read much of the Federalist Papers written in 1776 and found them quiet intriguing though not modern in writing at all. However the antiquity of the writing excited me as much as the content.
karla said: I was listening to a professor teach philosophy and he commented that it is typically much easier to read a philosopher's actual writings than it is to read the modern commentators on the philosopher.
Some are easier to read than others. I tend to read about them before I actually read them in order to put things into context.
karla said: I want to expand my reading to more philosophers of antiquity. I want to read Locke, Plato, Aristotle etc.
I really like Aristotle. Plato is pretty good too. Not so hot on Locke. David Hume writes beautifully though....
I've had a hard time taking all of Rousseau's moral meditations seriously having learning that he abandoned all of his children to an orphanage.
I know what you mean Karlo. In some respects he wasn't a very nice person at all.
Definitely a book I want to read.
With your reading speed sc you should polish that off in a morning or afternoon session. Its only just over 100 pages and is easy to read... even *with* pauses for thought.
Post a Comment