The Enlightenment and Rousseau: Liberty, Nature, and the Social Contract
The 17th Century: The Age of Enlightenment
THE ILLUSTRATION (17TH CENTURY) THE CENTURY OF LIGHT: Along the 17th century, European countries experienced unprecedented optimism and confidence in human capabilities. This was largely driven by the bourgeoisie, but the Enlightenment was a long and complex process, rooted in the Renaissance intellectual euphoria, the rationalism of Descartes, and English empiricist thought. Enlightened countries used symbolic expressions, such as the metaphor of light, to represent the transition from the darkness of ignorance to the illumination of wisdom. In France, this era was known as “the Age of Enlightenment,” culminating in the 1789 revolution. The French Enlightenment followed the English model, emphasizing reason and knowledge, as championed by Locke and Newton in the late 17th century. In the 18th century, David Hume pioneered research into human nature. In Germany, Kant integrated rationalism and empiricism, viewing the Enlightenment as the product of a minority, arguing that humans are incapable of using reason without guidance. Italy saw less progress due to the aftermath of Galileo’s condemnation, resulting in a decline in philosophy and science. Spain, due to cultural isolation under Philip II and his successors, remained largely untouched by the Enlightenment. Figures like Elhuyar and Jovellanos attempted to bring Spain out of its intellectual darkness.
Rousseau: The Natural Man and the Social Contract
THEORY AND POLICY: ROUSSEAU—MAN THE NATURAL MAN: Rousseau, like Hobbes, discussed the natural state of man. However, unlike Hobbes, Rousseau viewed the natural man as inherently good and happy, free from worry, industry, speech, and societal attachments. Rousseau’s primitive man, driven by self-love and compassion, is innocent and generous. Travel literature of Rousseau’s time supported this concept of the “noble savage,” portraying primitive people living in harmony with nature. In contrast, Rousseau’s contemporary historical man has lost this original goodness, succumbing to degeneration and hypocrisy. This historical man is mean, depraved, and full of hatred, masking his cowardice, selfishness, and passions through social appearances.
Therefore, enlightened behavior involves courtesy, eloquence, and social graces—all aspects of the sciences and arts. Fear, hatred, and betrayal hide beneath the mask of education.
This mask is doubly odious because it prevents the recognition and subsequent regeneration of mankind’s degradation. To explain the shift from the natural state to degeneration, Rousseau points to scarcity of resources as a catalyst for fear, weapon-making, and the abandonment of the natural state.
The Social Contract
Rousseau believed in the possibility of moral regeneration through a social contract—an attempt to harmonize individual and societal needs while preserving political freedom. Driven by survival, humans form associations for protection. The social contract involves an exchange: each individual surrenders their person and power to the general will, becoming an indivisible part of society. This represents the prioritization of the universal over the particular, justice over instinct, and the social over the natural. Obedience to laws enacted by the general will constitutes freedom—self-governance. Rousseau thus views the social contract positively, offering a path to recover happiness and freedom. He distinguishes between the general will and the “will of all.” The general will represents the common good, while the “will of all” is merely the sum of individual wills. The general will is determined through direct democracy, not representative democracy.
Rousseau’s Theory of Education
THEORY OF EDUCATION: Rousseau advocated for a new education that fosters natural child development, rejecting traditional, artificial methods. Education should cultivate free individuals by encouraging intuition and feeling. Morality, he believed, stems from natural feelings, leading to true citizenship rooted in human goodness.
Differences Between the Natural and Civil States
DIFFERENCES: NATURAL STATE: (the best state for the natural man) natural liberty limited by individual strength, the right to possess anything attainable, dependence on instinct and desire. CIVIL STATE: (the best state for civilized man) civil liberty constrained by the general will, the right to property, and moral freedom: obedience to self-prescribed law.