HUM-112 Section-011 Week 11 Group 4 Project Report/Outline/

Passages
Discourse on the Origin of Inequality by Rousseau
Rousseau’s View of Modernism: Corruption of the Civilisation
Deniz Çınar Bayburt - 22201822
Fatma Cansunar - 22203053
Emir Bülbül - 22103967
Mennan Gök - 22003074

The emergence of private property and artificial needs corrupted natural human freedom, giving

rise to competition, inequality, and a society where laws protect the powerful and oppress the weak.

Rousseau divides humanity into two, before and after the transition to modern society, and reveals

the radical changes in the development of society. According to Rousseau, the reason for the

independence of primitive people can be interpreted as their ability to live without depending on

others. However, with the development of society, the different talents of individuals came to the fore,

and in this case, comparison and competition between people began. People's sole purpose was no

longer to survive, but to gain status and power and to achieve a good position in the hierarchical class

that was formed. With this class distinction that emerged, the rich determined the laws in line with

their interests in order to increase their power. Thus, the oppressed part of the population only existed

for the desires of the powerful, being dominated. By describing the progress of society in this way,

Rousseau actually criticized humanity's oppression and creation of an unequal world under the name

of modernization. In addition, he emphasizes that in order to achieve a good position in this world,

people move away from their own nature, play roles and become filled with ambition. Rousseau

ironically explains how the human essence becomes brutal with modernization and how the balance

of power in society is formed. In short, Rousseau's initial perspective on human nature highlights a
condition of natural freedom by matching it with primitive animals. The emergence of private

property disrupts this equilibrium, prompting individuals to want not only survival but also the

validation of others. In contemporary culture, liberty has been replaced by a desire for prestige and

validation, resulting in diminished moral principles and entrenched inequalities.

It is an undeniable fact that in the modern age, society has degenerated into artificial desires,

moving away from its basic building blocks. Exalting the concept of man in pre-modern society,

Rousseau emphasizes that natural man makes decisions based on simple needs and emotions and says

that private property rights are the beginning of social inequality. (Rousseau,109). Equivalently,

people's insatiable and unquenchable hunger for private property contributed to the formation of

social classes. While the powerful acquired property, assets, and servers, the rest of society was

trapped in the lower classes. This confinement brought out the feeling of jealousy in people, and the

concept of social class grew. Therefore, people now establish their relationships based on interests in

order to obtain more. Equivalently, Rousseau says, “There is competition and rivalry on the one hand,

conflicts of interest on the other, and always the hidden desire to gain an advantage at the expense of

other people.” (Rousseau, 119). As a result, in this class distinction that emerged, the powerful began

to exploit the poor. In addition, the upper class, not content with this, secured the things that gave

them this power through laws, and laws became a guarantee of social decay. In conclusion, obedience

has become a virtue for society due to the dynamics of modernism, and the freedoms inherent in the

original state of man have disappeared, leaving their place to oppression, discrimination, and social

slavery.

Rousseau offers us a deep reflection on how societal changes led to the evolution of human nature

in A Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality among Men. He portrays primitive

humanity in a state of self-sufficiency and inherent goodness, characterized by modest aspirations and

simplicity. In the main argument, Rousseau claims that the advent of private property implies "the

first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying 'This is mine'"
(Rousseau, 109), bringing with it moral decay and social inequality. Rousseau does not, however,

expressly criticize the state of society today. He uses it as a critical perspective—a contrasting

viewpoint—to see how far humanity has deviated from its natural state, rather than as a direct attack.

His criticism of the ways in which social comparison, artificial wants, and dependence have shaped

the human condition is philosophical in nature rather than based on mindless nostalgia. The work of

Rousseau challenges the notion that moral advancement and development always go hand in hand,

suggesting that civilization may undermine natural equality and liberty in spite of economic

advancement. In the end, Rousseau urges readers to think about alternatives to a more equal and

authentic way of being human, to reevaluate the social values that underpin society, and to avoid

rejecting modern society outright.

1. Development of the Society

a. Nature of the Human

i. “This is mine’ and found people simple enough to believe him” (Rousseau,

109) ii. Two fundamental characteristics of the “animal” iii. “Nothing is more

peaceable than man in his primitive state”( Rousseau, 114)

b. Emergence of Artificial Needs

i. “The first yoke” (Rousseau, 112) ii. Origin of artificial needs (Rousseau,

114) iii. “The savage lives within himself; social man lives always outside

himself”

(Rousseau, 134)

c. Ambition, Envy, and Self-interest

rivalry on the one hand, conflicts of interest on the other, and always the hidden

desire to gain an advantage at the expense of other people.” (Rousseau, 119)

2. Modernism from the Opposite Perspective

a. General Inequality

i. Dominance and superiority over animals ii. One man needed help from

another, and equality disappeared (Rousseau, 115) iii. “You are lost if you forget

that the fruits of the earth belong to everyone and that the earth itself belongs to no

one!” ( Rousseau, 109) iv. Powerful and dependent

b. Oppression

i. Laws and lower class ii. Social enslavement iii. “In which there is no hope

to be derived from an honorable deed”( Rousseau, 134)

Passages:

1-) “If we follow the progress of inequality in these different revolutions, we shall find that the

establishment of law and the right of property was the first stage, the institution of magistrates the

second, and the transformation of legitimate into arbitrary power the third and last stage. Thus, the

status of rich and poor was authorized by the first epoch, that of strong and weak by the second, and

by the third that of master and slave, which is the last degree of inequality, and the stage to which

all the others finally lead until new revolutions dissolve the government altogether or bring it back

to legitimacy.” (Rousseau, 130)

2-) “All ran towards their chains believing that they were securing their liberty; for although they had

reason enough to discern the advantages of a civil order, they did not have experience enough to

foresee the dangers. Those most capable of predicting the abuses were precisely those who expected
to profit from them; and even the wisest saw that men must resolve to sacrifice one part of their

freedom in order to preserve the other, even as a wounded man has his arm cut off to save the rest of

his body. Such was, or must have been, the origin of society and of laws, which put new fetters on

the weak and gave new powers to the rich (R), which irretrievably destroyed natural liberty,

established for all time the law of property and inequality, transformed adroit usurpation into

irrevocable right, and for the benefit of a few ambitious men subjected the human race thenceforth to

labour, servitude and misery.”(Rousseau, 122)

3-)”Behold, then, all our faculties developed, memory and imagination brought into play, pride

stimulated, reason made active and the mind almost at the point of the perfection of which it is capable.

Behold all the natural qualities called into action, the rank and destiny of each man established, not

only as to the quantity of his possessions and his power to serve or to injure, but as to intelligence,

beauty, strength, skill, merit or talents; and since these qualities were the only ones that could attract

consideration it soon became necessary either to have them or to feign them. It was necessary in one’s

own interest to seem to be other than one was in reality. Being and appearance became two entirely

different things, and from this distinction arose insolent ostentation, deceitful cunning and all the vices

that follow in their train.” (Rousseau, 118)

Close Reading

Rousseau describes in this chapter the moral implications of the focus on appearance rather than

reality in society today. Rousseau starts out describing how the mind develops to perfection as abilities

like memory, imagination, and reason grow. This development causes pride, striving for rank, and

vanity rather than moral awareness. Rousseau shows how differences in nature—i.e., intelligence or

physical appearance—became social indicators of one's value. These traits turn the focus from being

to seeming since they are appreciated not for what they are but for the impression they create.
The book's turning point is when Rousseau says that people either have or fake these traits. This is

where a pseudo society starts where people are compelled to offer artificial selves to become accepted

by others. The separation of "being and appearance" immediately results in "insolent ostentation" and

"deceitful cunning," so stressing Rousseau's worry about the deterioration of personal integrity. In

contemporary society, pretence is better rewarded than truth, so the moral deterioration is a result of

the disappearance of natural simplicity.

In this, Voltaire's faith in reason and advancement is polar opposites to Rousseau's worry in this

chapter, but Kant's emphasis on moral autonomy and honesty appeals to them. As a sequel to

Rousseau's statement of the disalienation of modern man, Kant agreed that moral worth must be based

on internal and not external approbation. Voltaire, however, praised the intellectual and social

advancement of the Enlightenment and regarded society polish and wit as virtues and not sins.

Rousseau sees dishonesty and alienation; Voltaire sees civilization and refinement.
Works Cited

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. A Discourse on Inequality. Translated by Maurice Cranston, Penguin