Through his discourse, Rousseau tells a story about man before modern civilization – a man living in the state of nature. In this state, man does not have slings to help him throw rocks or ladders to help him climb trees as the modern man does. The savage man is a solitary one that lives among other animals with self-preservation being his main and only concern. He states that in the state of nature, man and the earth “is not subject to those sudden and continual changes which arise from the passions and caprices of bodies of men living together.” Rousseau believes that his was when man was truly free – when there was no inequality in the human race.
I then started to wonder why Rousseau thought that man was naturally solitary? If self-preservation is the main and only concern of man, wouldn’t the creation of social relations with the goal of self-preservation in mind be natural? Social relations leads to cooperation, cohabitation, and consequently the division of labor – all of which make the rate of self-preservation higher for humans.
If Rousseau were an evolutionary scientist or a psychologist would he still believe in the state of nature? Let’s think about this.
If Rousseau were an evolutionary scientist, he may believe in Darwin’s theory of natural selection. This states that there is variation, adaptation, and passing along the genes. Variation is something Rousseau discusses in his discourse. He states that there are physical differences and inequalities in age, health, and bodily and mental strength. However, something Rousseau does not discuss is adaptation. If he were an evolutionary scientist, he would believe that man’s genes and behaviors would adapt to his environment to survive better. Adaptation could include phenotypic changes such as the famous peppered moth transformation (Too long didn’t read version: The light peppered moth evolved into a darker shade after pollution stained the light-colored trees they rested upon).
Adaptations could include
behavior changes such as birds learning how to migrate. Other similar
adaptations could include behaviors such as joining forces with other man to
better collect food, build habitats, and kill predators. If Rousseau were an
evolutionary scientist, he would also believe in passing along genes. It would
be “survival of the fittest”, where the most fit would be the only ones passing
along their genes. Survivors would mate with each other and pass on their
superior genes to their offspring passing along the adaptable traits and
behaviors. This would mean that the adapted traits would become more and more
popular. If Rousseau were an evolutionary scientist, he wouldn’t think that
cooperation, cohabitation, and division of labor were unnatural to man. A man
that did associate and work together with others would just be trying to
survive in a world with limited resources the best that he could. In fact, he could see social interaction as a way to level out the playing field by working together, instead of the root of inequality.
If Rousseau were a psychologist, he would say that social interaction is a necessity to human life and a driving force of happiness for many people. Study after study shows that social interaction is as essential as food and shelter. The first study is how early neglect alters the brains of Romanian orphans who were given all the typical necessities of food, clothing, and shelter, but no human interaction or human touch. The study found that a child's brain cannot develop fully without human interaction. The second study shows how elderly have a hard time adjusting to their diminishing network of social relationships as people they know start to pass away or become distant because of their inability to move as freely as they once could. In addition, the psychology on happiness tributes meaningful social relationships to be a top cause of human fulfillment and importance. So if Rousseau were a psychologist, he may think that social interaction is a necessity, not the root of inequality.
If Rousseau were a psychologist, he would say that social interaction is a necessity to human life and a driving force of happiness for many people. Study after study shows that social interaction is as essential as food and shelter. The first study is how early neglect alters the brains of Romanian orphans who were given all the typical necessities of food, clothing, and shelter, but no human interaction or human touch. The study found that a child's brain cannot develop fully without human interaction. The second study shows how elderly have a hard time adjusting to their diminishing network of social relationships as people they know start to pass away or become distant because of their inability to move as freely as they once could. In addition, the psychology on happiness tributes meaningful social relationships to be a top cause of human fulfillment and importance. So if Rousseau were a psychologist, he may think that social interaction is a necessity, not the root of inequality.
If Rousseau were an evolutionary scientist or
psychologist would he think that he think a social human that has relationships
with others is part of being a natural man as well? What do you think – is social interaction natural or the root of inequality?
Picture Citations:
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/component/content/article/127.html
This is an interesting thought on Rousseau's concept of human interactions. As I was reading through this, I actually thought of the many theories that we discuss in my Biological Anthropology class. In fact, when we look at primate (monkeys and apes), we find some species have very complex social structures. In each social structure though, the primates are BENEFITTING from the interaction. For instance, some primates live in one-male, multi-female groups. This relationship allows the males to have all-access to females since males are constantly ready to reproduce, while females have a "waiting" period (gestation and such). Then, the females in the group will always have a head male to reproduce with and protect them and their young. Many female primates also benefit from the female bonding too. This is just one example of the many social structures that primates create. But they always do so because the structures allow for more production of young. In other words, it's an adaptation or, in your words, "natural". This puts an interesting out look onto Rousseau's theory, especially since humans have evolved from primates. Perhaps, in our evolution, social relationships were the key to our success?
ReplyDeleteWhile you have a good insight on evolution and psychology, I think you're missing a couple of key points of Rousseau's argument.
ReplyDeleteThe state of nature is not a real thing. It didn't occur at a fixed time or place or among a certain group of people. And it didn't end at a point where everyone came together and decided that it would be better to cohabitate.
Also, Rousseau recognized that people probably lived in loose groupings with others.
In Origins of Inequality: The Second Part, Rousseau writes "Taught by experience that the love of well-being is the sole motive of human actions, he found himself in a position to distinguish the few cases, in which mutual interest might justify him in relying upon the assistance of his fellows; and also the still fewer cases in which a conflict of interests might give cause to suspect them. In the former case, he joined in the same herd with them, or at most in some kind of loose association, that laid no restraint on its members, and lasted no longer than the transitory occasion that formed it."
Finally, Rousseau argument is that when people started to develop families the way that they saw others and interacted with them fundamentally changed. It is not that people never interacted with each other and then this significantly changed.
Ellen-
ReplyDeleteOn one of my family vacations, I got to see an adaptation of Darwin’s finches, so the idea of evolutionary science is a neat one and I like the way you incorporated that into Rousseau. That being said, throughout the post, you question why Rousseau thinks that man was naturally solitary and inequality did not exist in his state of nature. You argue against this notion by saying if Rousseau believes in evolutionary science which is basically undeniable, that a state of nature would progress into changes via adaptations of the survival of the fittest. If this notion were true than “survival of the fittest” or a tendency toward inequality would be inherent to society and therefore inherent to the state of nature, making Rousseau’s state of nature faulty. This being said, I think you can view evolution in a different light which makes Rousseau’s argument still valid. As Rousseau says, man is naturally solitary and inequality does not exist in his state of nature. This being true, inequality can be viewed not as a natural tendency of society but a learned adaptation. By this I mean that naturally man can be solitary without inequality but when interacted which other men can realize that competition that produces inequality can put himself ahead of another and be better suited for his environment, learning the idea of inequality. Overall, while your post makes an interesting connection between evolution and Rousseau, I think one can view Rousseau’s state of nature as still valid with inequality representing an adaptation.
Thanks for the read!
-Brennan