Rousseau’s Natural Man as the Critic of Urbanised Society

Ville Lähde

doi:10.7557/4.2761

Abstract

Rousseau&rsquo;s description of the pure state of nature and the natural man in his <em>Discours<br />sur l&rsquo;Origine et les Fondements de l&rsquo;In&eacute;galit&eacute; parmi les Hommes</em> (1755) has been a controversial topic in Rousseau studies. Natural man has no stable human relationships, language or developed reason, and does not recognise other humans as akin to him. How is it possible to reconcile Rousseau&rsquo;s views on the pure state of nature with his speculative history of humanity? How could mankind even begin to develop? Why did Rousseau create such a seemingly disharmonious and disagreeable construct? This article introduces a new strategy of interpretation. Instead of proposing a single interpretation of the pure state of nature, it proposes to view Rousseau&rsquo;s understanding of human nature as a literary device which allowed him to address many questions at once. His insistence on the solitude and ignorance of natural human beings is examined as a part of his critique of other philosophers. This, however, does not explain another tension within the depiction of the pure state of nature. Sometimes natural human beings are ignorant, incapable of learning or surpassing their instincts, but, at other times, they seem very smart and resourceful. This article shows that the latter sections of his work imply a critique of contemporary societies. In these sections, Rousseau introduces his analysis of urban life.

Highlights

In his book Discours sur l’Origine et les Fondements de l’Inégalité parmi les Hommes (1755), often called the Second Discourse, Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote a speculative description of humanity before the birth of societies and its subsequent development all the way towards the urbanising and modernising societies of his time
I explore in detail one of these philosophical functions, namely how Rousseau employs the figure of natural man in his critique of contemporary societies
Because natural man in the pure state of nature is so primitive, to the point of absurdity, and because Rousseau has detached him from the possibilities of development, there has been a lot of debate over the philosophical function of the pure state of nature in the Second Discourse

Summary

Ville Lähde

In his book Discours sur l’Origine et les Fondements de l’Inégalité parmi les Hommes (1755), often called the Second Discourse, Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote a speculative description of humanity before the birth of societies and its subsequent development all the way towards the urbanising and modernising societies of his time. Popularised or introductory texts on Rousseau’s thinking often still have him drawing an idealised image of the original natural man (l’homme naturel), a solitary primitive being who is good and happy, and even making a clarion call for a ‘return to nature’ These simplistic readings, which did still have some academic credence in the early twentieth century, have subsequently been largely discredited in Rousseau studies. Lovejoy in his essay ‘The Supposed Primitivism of Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality’ pointed out that Rousseau did not idolise the life of the solitary natural men Instead his ideal was the life of the so-called savages who live in traditional societies.[1] But even though few Rousseau scholars would still make such simplistic claims about idealised original humans, that notion continues to loom in the background. Because natural man in the pure state of nature is so primitive, to the point of absurdity, and because Rousseau has detached him from the possibilities of development, there has been a lot of debate over the philosophical function of the pure state of nature in the Second Discourse

Point of origin or philosophical abstraction?

Critique of contemporary society