Poli 64 Modern Political Thought

Poli 64 Modern Political Thought TURN YOUR PHONE OFF! October 11 1776 Benedict Arnold and the Battle of Valcour Island During the American Revolution, a British fleet under Sir Guy Carleton defeats 15 American gunboats under the command of Brigadier General Benedict Arnold at the Battle of Valcour Island on Lake Champlain, New York. Although nearly all of Arnold's ship were destroyed, it took more than two days for the British to subdue the Patriot naval force, delaying Carleton's campaign and giving the Patriot ground forces adequate time to prepare a crucial defense of New York.

Modern Thought (or it that moderns’ conceits?) Jeopardy! Answer: The historical movement in which it was believed to be “a grand and beautiful sight to see man emerge somehow from nothing by his own efforts; dissipate, by the light of reason, the shadows in which nature had enveloped him; rise above himself; soar by means of his mind into the heavenly regions… and what is even grander and more difficult, return to himself in order to study man and know his nature, his duties, and his end.” The question: What is THE ENLIGHTENMENT?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau Dates 1712 Rousseau is born in Geneva 1728 -- leaves Geneva, moves to Annency 1740 -- moves to Lyon 1742 -- moves to Paris 1743-44 -- appointed Secretary for the French Ambassador to Venice 1749 -- enters essay competition at the Academy of Dijon; wins in 1750 (Discourseon the Sciences and the Arts) 1754 -- publishes Discourse on Inequality 1755 -- publishes Discourse on Political Economy 1762 -- publishes On the Social Contract 1767-1778 -- European travels 1778 -- Rousseau dies, near Paris Major concepts Reciprocity Convention Equality Sovereignty General Will The Enlightenment

Modern Thought "Highlights" Social/Political Changes Historical Moments Philosophical Themes Trade Renaissance (c15-16) Secularism Urbanization Reformation (c16) Individualism Centralization Scientific Revolution (c16-17) Scientism Religious diversity Enlightenment (c18) Popular gov’t Age of Revolution (c18-19) Rousseau’s context: Decline of autocratic government Rise of commercial society Critique of the classical legacy (“the quarrel of the ancients and the moderns”) Emergence of “categorical” conceptions of equality

Rousseau and the Logic of Republican Redemption Text themes: Where we are (Sciences and Arts) How we got here (Inequality) What we can do about it (Social Contract) Logic of development (species and individual): Power/Knowledge and Corruption (what has happened) Innocence Reason (what should have and could happen) Redemption of the ideal of freedom

The effects of “enlightenment”: Creation of the modern “citizen” Opacity Uniformity Deference and lack of authenticity Insincerity Mutual suspicions, violations, fear, lack of pity, deceit

Rousseau on the Sciences and Arts (or, where we are) Needs Origins of power? Basis of power? Knowledge Sciences and Arts today Serve power by knowledge Origins: Vice Source of abuses: INEQUALITY Objects: Idleness Effects: laziness, skepticismvanity, manipulation, Losses Value of: virtue unjustified distinction Of judgment Of vigor Of courage Of moralityitself

The inequalities of modern citizens Sources of distinction Objects of contempt Integrity Superficial talents Rhetorical skill Resolute action Glory Fortune Citizenship Self-interest Who are our heroes??? How did we get like this? Whence these inequalities???

Rousseau on the origins of inequality (or, how we got here) Knowing the origin of inequality requires knowing human nature in its ‘natural’ state, but no such state exists, and may never haveexisted. ‘State of nature’ arguments are tautologies; they presuppose what they ‘prove.’ The only real truths about human nature are those that take us for what we are, and help us see the difference between: *what we have made ourselves and what we could be *what we would be without society, without speech, without reason and what society has made us *what we did -- or could have done – to get to here and what can do about it

Rousseau on the origins of inequality (or, the paradox of society) -- Society, by way of reason, “smothers” our nature Human nature: Social nature: Self-preservation Pity Physical (natural) inequality Domination Indifference Conventional inequality Dispositions: Condition: The transformation of man: Survival difficulties Mutual dependence Language and property Reason and conventions

Corruption comes from human vice (passions for idleness, vanity, distinction) Property is the embodiment of vice: 1. Property divides individuals, multiplying “needs,” burdens, and fears 2. Property enables distinctions 3. Property becomes the means of ambition, and ambition is secured by domination Dangers: Violence and insecurity

The paradox of society: “The vices that make social institutions necessary are the same ones that make their abuses inevitable.” The desire for domination is the vice that makes social institutions necessary – and the vice that makes the corruption of social institutions inevitable. But property also requires security, and this makes civil society possible 1. Force is unstable: Power is secured by right, when obedience becomes duty No one would give up natural liberty just to be dominated; laws must serve all equally or they allow for the growth of corruption 2. Right is reciprocal: 3. A good society is a society of equality and reciprocity Those with the most to lose must convince everyone else to respect property – and this they can do only by promising equality and reciprocity. Natural inequalities are moot, social inequalities are conventional, conventions presuppose reciprocity, but social inequalities are non-reciprocal.

Summary: Rousseau’s redemption of republicanism 1. We’re in a bad way. Corruption is rampant. 2. It’s our own fault. Each believes s/he can benefit from corruption, but everyone suffers because of selfishness. Preoccupation with security forproperty is the cause and the result of selfishness. 3. Security – and freedom -- is impossible without self-control. But no onewill forebear unless: A. Everyone gets the same benefits from the civil association.(If anyone suffers, everyone is in danger of suffering). EQUALITY B. Everyone shares the same burdens. (If anyone gets off easy, they are taking advantage of everyone else’s efforts). RECIPROCITY

Rousseau on the Social Contract (or, how to redeem the promise of society) Society makes it possible to realize our humanity Justification: equality and reciprocity Origins of society Reality: inequality for domination The challenge: turn force into right and obedience into duty -- Strength is unstable -- Slavery is non-reciprocal The conventions of reasonable consent 1. Total alienation of all rights to the community Effect: complete equality 2. Commitment to the public good: agree to be directed by the General Will 3. Participation in the exercise of sovereign power The conditions of sovereignty 1. The General Will is inalienable 2. The General Will is indivisible 3. The General Will is never wrong 4. The General Will is impossible to discover; hence the need for “legislators”

The conditions of sovereignty Some fundamental features of the sovereign power: The body politic cannot exist without the security of all members The interest of each member as citizen is coextensive with the interest of the whole body Sovereignty is absolute; thus freedom requires participation in sovereign power The interests of individuals as citizens must always take precedence over their interests as private persons The will of the body politic is the interest of the whole public: 1. The General Will is inalienable The sovereign body politic can only represent itself 2. The General Will is indivisible No part or faction of the association can arrogate sovereignty 3. The General Will is never wrong Individuals may misunderstand what the public good requires 4. The General Will is impossible to discover; hence the need for “legislators” The influence of private interests, the limitations of human knowledge, the difficulties of unanticipated consequences, the contingencies of historical change, must be recognized. We must not assume that we are “free”; we can only be free by continuing to participate in the exercise of sovereign power

The Challenge of Citizenship (or how to become a “legislator”) Individuals are both citizens – as members of the sovereign power and subjects -- as private persons in relation to the state The challenge for citizens: Private interest must never be allowed to subvert the public good The General Will – and the aim of laws -- must be liberty and equality --Natural inequalities are irrelevant -- Conventional inequalities must be “power-free” The difficulties of these ideals are no excuse for not trying to realize them Laws are not enough; vigilance is the cost of liberty and equality: Apathy is a sure sign of degeneracy Representative government is only good for citizens who are slaves to their interests The challenge of good citizenship is to become a “legislator”: A “moral” being Cognizant of human nature, but not swayed by it Dedicated to the common – not one’s own -- happiness Willing to forbear in claims to power or sovereignty

Sovereignty and government -- It is not laws, but the power to make laws, that is the “heart” of the state -- Government is not sovereignty; it is merely the executor of the sovereign will *Government mediates relations between private persons *The ideal government is a democracy -- Those making the law are in the best position to know how it should be interpreted and enforced -- But: *It is dangerous for those who make the law to execute it *Modern societies cannot be democracies Democracies must be small societies Democrats must be morally rigid Democracies must be radically egalitarian Democracies must be simple societies Democracies are subject to civil strife If you want freedom, you must have a democracy, and if you want a democracy, you must control your “human nature”and strive to be like “a god”

The Classical and the Modern Political Ideals We can no longer enjoy the liberty of the ancients, which consisted in an active and constant participation in collective power. Our freedom must consist of peaceful enjoyment and private independence. The share which in antiquity everyone held in national sovereignty was by no means an abstract presumption as it is in our own day. The will of each individual had real influence: the exercise of this will was a vivid and repeated pleasure. Consequently the ancients were ready to make many a sacrifice to preserve their political rights and their share in the administration of the state. Everybody, feeling with pride all that his suffrage was worth, found in this awareness of his personal importance a great compensation. This compensation no longer exists for us today. Lost in the multitude, the individual can almost never perceive the influence he exercises. Never does his will impress itself upon the whole; nothing confirms in his eyes his own cooperation. The exercise of political rights, therefore, offers us but a part of the pleasures that the ancients found in it, while at the same time the progress of civilization, the commercial tendency of the age, the communication amongst peoples, have infinitely multiplied and varied the means of personal happiness. It follows that we must be far more attached than the ancients to our individual independence. For the ancients when they sacrificed that independence to their political rights, sacrificed less to obtain more; while in making the same sacrifice we would give more to obtain less. The aim of the ancients was the sharing of social power among the citizens of the same fatherland: this is what they called liberty. The aim of the moderns is the enjoyment of security in private pleasures; and they call liberty the guarantees accorded by institutions to these pleasures. Benjamin Constant, 1816

BACK

Bill Brittany and Madonna Alan Abe Lizzy and Susan Martin OR

Poli 64 Modern Political Thought