Rousseau holds a position entirely opposite of Locke. He says the earth is entirely sufficient for man, "abandoned to its natural fertility, and covered by immense forests which no Axe ever mutilated, at every step offers Storage an shelter to the animals of every species" [3].
What is the root cause of the divergence between these two accounts? Taking a look at both Locke and Rousseau's account of the state of nature may help shed some light on the matter.
Locke says that the state of nature is comprised of the states of liberty and equality [4], with the law of nature (reason) governing it [6]. This means that man is in a state of relative peace and that he defends the liberty of everyone equally. He is bound to preserve himself, and along with himself, the rest of mankind.
Rousseau's account of the state of nature is not as rigid and textbook as that of Locke (or Hobbes). Nature is, well, nature, and if we imagine mankind in a rain forest never having come into contact with civil society - we are on the right track. This results in man being timid and fearful: "forever trembling, and ready to flee at the least noise that strikes him, and at the least movement he notices [6]. No mention of hostile Hobbesean attacks on his neighbors, nor any mention of reason as an integral part of the Savage world. He is almost solely concerned with self-preservation against an unsure (and possibly language-less) world.
So far both accounts seem to be very similar. But the split happens before either system gets completely off the ground, for we can see in Locke's very conception of the state of nature that we are not conceiving of savages, but with civil men like ourselves. The law of nature, reason, seems not to be a cold, calculating reason found in animals (or in Rousseau's Savages), but an advanced way of reasoning that pre-civil man should not possess. Of course the earth is useless for civilians, for we are not used to going naked or being without habitation, not to mention using our own two hands to hunt and fight off predators.
Rousseau's account of pre-civil man is more accurate, for assuming that this man is more like the animals, he lives in the open and takes part of a rugged lifestyle, making the earth in its natural form perfectly fitted for his use. Rousseau warns against the error that Locke made: "Let us therefore beware of confusing Savage man with the men we have before our eyes" [11]. This is Locke's fatal mistake in his characterization of the earth and what it has to offer, and stems from the misconception of savage man he formed in the beginning.
While I agree that Rousseau's portrayal of nature is more accurate than that of Hobbes and Locke, it also makes some questions that the latter two deal with quite easily much harder to answer. Some of these Rousseau deals with himself: If man in a state of nature is primarily a solitary creature, where does language develop from? Does a society need language in place to develop, or vice versa? What would cause a society to first develop? These questions are much harder for Rousseau to answer, but I think that could be because of his more natural description of savage man.
ReplyDeleteWhy should we think humans are solitary anyway? Almost no animals are solitary. Nearly all live in groups or communities. Animals that can cover more ground can range farther from each other thus appearing alone while hunting or foraging. But if we aren't naturally solitary then civil society could develop gradually out of what we might call animal society - a community of instincts and needs. We would then need to look for another source of the problem.
ReplyDelete